1920-06-10

BOARD OF COMMERCE REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Board of Commerce of Canada, together with a copy of the Order in Council submitting the same.- Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 168 to amend the Irrigation Act.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: This Bill provides for expropriation, where necessary, of inferior water rights for the benefit of superior water rights. In the original Act domestic, municipal, commercial, and irrigation water rights are given orders of preference in the order named. It has been found that in practice where the first or second or third, as the case may be, develops to be more essential than the second, third or fourth, there must be power to expropriate the inferior rights, paying for them what may be necessary, in order that the higher and more essential rights may not suffer. That is the main object of the Bill. One other purpose is to provide that water derivable from springs shall be in the same position as to federal control as other waters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. POWER:: With reference to an inquiry of the ministry by Mr. Power, answered by the Minister of Militia as follows :-
A classification of the Department of Militia and Defence has been submitted to the Civil

Service Commission. In every case where a returned soldier is holding a position which it is proposed to make permanent, his name has been submitted for appointment.
With regard to the other positions, it has been suggested to the Civil Service Commission that these positions should be thrown open to competition, thereby giving returned soldiers an opportunity of obtaining appointment to the same.
1.	Does the phrase "other positions" in the first line, second paragraph of. reply, include all positions now temporarily held by other than returned soldiers? [DOT]
2.	If not, what are the exceptions?
3.	In connection with positions thrown open to competitive examination, will returned soldiers be given the preference, that is, will returned men who pass with the minimum qualifications be appointed in preference to better qualified civilians?
4.	Will an examination of "Military Qualifications" be one of the subjects included in the competitive examinations?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1 and 2. On the recommendation of the heads of branches, three officials were recommended to the Civil Service Commission for special appointment, viz., the Director of Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay, the Assistant Chief Accountant, and the 'Assistant Director of Records.
'The heads of branches reported that, if these officials were not continued in their present positions, it would completely dis1-organize the branches, and, therefore, a recommendation ad hoc was made to the Civil Service Commission.
3 and 4. This is a matter which rests entirely in the hands of the Civil Service Commission.


COLONEL H. A. CHISHOLM.
Mr. MANION:: 1.	Is Lieut.-Col. Chisholm of the P.A.M.C., who was second in command of the Medical Forces under General Foster in London, still an officer in the Medical Forces of Canada?
2.	If so, what position does he hold?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to keep this man in the Permanent A.M.C. ?


Hugh Guthrie: It is presumed that this question refers to Colonel H. A. Chisholm, C.M.G., D.S.O., who was recently employed as Deputy Director of Medical Services, Overseas Military Forces of Canada, London. If so, the answers are:
1.	Yes.
2.	At present employed under the Overseas Ministry in connection with winding up the Medical Services, Overseas Military Forces of Canada.
3.	Yes. He is a highly efficient and experienced medical officer whose retention is in the interests of efficiency, as his record shows.


IMPORTATIONS FROM GERMANY AND AUSTRIA.
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What is the chief nature of the goods imported from Germany and Austria in 1919?
2.	What is the character of these goods for the first three months of 1920?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	From Germany.-Articles of chief value:-Articles of metal, when for use exclusively in mining or metallurgical operations. Machinery composed wholly or in part of iron or steel, and iron or steel integral parts thereof. Musical instruments. Precious stones not mounted or set.
From Austria.-Articles of chief value:- Insulators, electric.
2.	From Germany. Articles of chief value:-Garden and field seeds in packages; tools, hand; penknives, etc.; articles of glass and manufactures of glass; manufactures of wood; labels for cigar boxes, etc.; photographs, chromos, etc.; manufactures of paper; braides, cords, etc.; toy6 of all kinds; musical instruments; precious stones.
From Austria.

Articles of chief value:- Hops; lamp chimneys; jewellery.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVE AT INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in the report that the Hon. Mr. Roy, the High Commissioner for Canada at Paris, has been appointed to represent Canada at the International Labour Conference at Genoa?


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: Yes, it is my recollection that he has been appointed. I am not quite sure whether there is any other Canadian representative or not.


SS. CANADIAN INVENTOR - DELAYED IN SAILING.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Tuesday last my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries promised to give some information on the following day as to the delays which have occurred in the sailing of the steamship " Canadian Inventor" owing to some trouble between the company and its employees. Can the minister give us the information today?


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I would have given the information yesterday but that my hon. friend did not happen to be in his seat when the Orders of the Day were called. As I stated the other day, one of the causes of the delay was a strike of the painters. Happily, that has now been settled. I have also ascertained that the Coughlan Shipbuilding Company did not make the ship's shaft according to specifications, and therefore the inspection by Lloyd's and by one of our inspectors of the Marine Department has been withheld until the shafting has been adjusted. I understand this also has been attended to. The vessel is now in dry dock, owing to her having been in the water since January last. One of the clauses in the specifications provides for the docking of the vessel if the Marine Department finds that is necessary. I do not anticipate that there is anything wrong with the bottom of the ship, but inasmuch as she has to make a very long trip to Australia it was thought wise to have her docked. As far as I can judge at the moment, she ought to be ready to sail within two weeks, and probably less.


DIRECTOR OF COAL OPERATIONS.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 153 (from the Senate), (from 7th June), respecting the Director of Coal Operations, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When this Bill was
last before the committee section 1 had been considered and adopted. Section 2 is now under consideration; shall the section carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, when this Bill was before the committee at a former sitting I took strong exception to the minister asking Parliament to ratify and confirm matters of which the members of this House have no knowledge, and have had no opportunity of considering. This section is as fallows:
The orders heretofore issued by the Director of Coal Operations set forth in the schedule hereto attached are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall be deemed to have been lawfully made on the respective dates when they were signed by the said Director of Coal Operations.
Then there follows in the schedule not the text but the numbers of orders numbering from 1 to 144. Several of these orders are alphabetically subdivided, so that in fact there is a total of about 170 orders. The Bill was held over, that the House might have opportunity to see the orders, and I have in my hand the volume of orders which were issued by the Director

of Coal Operations. It is a volume very much larger tHan any compilation of statutes which might be made. as a result of the labours of four or five sessions of Parliament. I have gone through the orders in a hurried way and I find that they relate to all manner of subjects, the fixing of the rates of wages to be paid in different mines, the prices at which coal is to be mined, and the classes of labour to be employed; in a broad way they resemble the kind of legislation one finds in the reign oif Queen Elizabeth, when the State undertook to regulate matters relating to wages and prices in accordance with the spirit of that age. I shall not take up the time of the House more than to illustrate the danger there is in Parliament attempting to ratify and confirm these orders, and to give them the force of legal enactment; I shall quote one or two sections of one order to show hon. members the kind of thing they will be enacting if they pass this clause. Order 141 contains the following:
All men who work in and around the mines who are eligible to become members of the United Mine Workers of America must join that organization and agree to sign check-off for all dues, assessments and fines, and the management of the mines agree to forward deductions made to the Acting Secretary of the District or such other persons as that official may designate.
The foregoing clause to become effective vhenever the officials of the United Mine Workers of America appear on the ground in each locality and co-operate with the operators in arranging details.
It is agreed that no man will be employed or be permitted to remain in the employ of the company unless he agrees to comply with the foregoing conditions.
If we enact into law these various orders it means amongst other things that this Parliament is providing that in these mines in the West no workers can be employed unless they belong to the United Mine Workers of America. That may or may not be advisable-I am not raising that question one way or the other-I should however, like Parliament to understand what it is doing, should it blindly endorse and ratify and thereby transform into permanent legislation orders issued to deal with a particular situation. I think this one clause is quite sufficient to illustrate the danger of enacting into law a great mass of regulations and orders which no member of this House has seen. If the Director of Coal Operations has been acting within the scope of his authority in issuing these orders no exception can be taken to them. If, as stated by the minister in introducing the

Bill, the parties are agreed in reference to these orders, why not leave [DOT]them in agreement and allow that mutual understanding to decide matters? To give legislative force and sanction to these orders is simply to introduce into this country a system of compulsory arbitration which thus far we have not felt justified in instituting in Canada. These orders will have all the force of a statute once Parliament confirms and ratifies them; the parties to them will become liable to penalties at law, and the labour of the country will be brought into the position occupied by labour in countries where compulsory enactments govern the relations between employers and employees. I do not think that such a departure is wise; I believe it is departing from sound principle and, I hope the minister will not find it necessary to press this particular clause.
There is one other feature which might be considered and that is, whether or not this Parliament has the right to legislate in matters of contract such as wages and prices and other questions arising between employer and employee, and whether such matters do not properly come within the scope of provincial rather than of federal jurisdiction. There is at least, a doubt in the matter, and I think that where a doubt exists, the objections being as strong as they are to this kind of wholesale legislation, the Government would be well advised to let the Bill rest with confirming the Orders in Council giving power to the Director of Coal Operations to do what he has hitherto done, and not attempt to give legislative force to all of the orders he has issued.


Arthur Meighen: If there is anything in the principle which the hon. member urges, it would be just as effective against the portion of the Bill which he purposes to allow to pass as against the portion he opposes. If the Orders in Council are confirmed, then undoubtedly legislation is passed of the character to which he objects. The only effect of the last clause is to still any possibility of litigation as to the effectiveness of the various orders of the Coal Director, which were based on the Orders in Council. It simply obviates the possibility of dispute, and that is all. Certainly, if the Orders in. Council are ratified, then a measure of compulsory arbitration, under the circumstances that existed when the orders were passed and that still exist, is ratified. Unquestionably there was a measure of compulsory arbitration; unquestionably it was essential; and just as unquestionably
it was called for by both parties to the dispute. There was no other way of getting the coal. What is the use in one breath of crying to the Government to see that coal is mined, and then in the next breath saying to the Government: " Don't do anything yourselves to get the coal mined "? This is the step that was taken. It proved effective and is proving effective to-day. Why therefore upset it? We are only asking that the course that has been pursued at the request of both parties be legalized in order that all parties, not merely through their representatives but individually on both sides, may be bound by it. That is essential. All we are asking is that what has proved a successful means of getting coal be ratified by this House until next session. If Parliament next session chooses in any way to modify them Parliament is free to do so and if Parliament does nothing, then the whole legislation dies at the close of the session. The order which the hon. gentleman read does .apparently just what he says. It provides that employees shall be members of the United Mine Workers of America. There may be some objection in principle to that-I do not know; but I do know that had it not been for these very orders we would not have had any coal mined. It may have been that there was lacking reason .and moderation on one side or the other; doubtless it was lacking on both sides, but we did the very best we could and got the best man we could get to go out there and see what was the best thing to be done. He went out there, did his best and succeeded. We do not want any litigation to arise over what has been done. We do not want any difficulty to be created by isolated, discontented parties, perhaps when the public interest is best served as well as the general interest of all the parties to the dispute.


Mr. FIELDING:: This is the most amazing Bill that has ever been submitted to this Parliament in my memory. The whole Bill . is bad. If the hon. the Minister of the Interior desires to confer certain powers upon this coal commissioner, he should come forward with distinct authority by statute to confer these powers. Irrespective of any Order in Council, he should bring in a Bill in the same way as he does in any other case. We are legislating here and legislating in a most marvellous way. We are supposed to have certain well defined procedure to guard against hasty legislation. In certain cases you must first bring forward a resolution, it must stand on the

Order Paper for a while, and then you must discuss it in Committee of the Whole. Then you must proceed to get a Bill and that Bill must go through its first reading, it must go through its-second reading and it must go through its third reading. All these are parts of the machinery devised to enable an intelligent Parliament to deal intelligently with important questions. Every one of these principles is disregarded when we are asked to declare hy Act of Parliament that 144 regulations, not one of which has ever been read in this House, are legal and -are declared to be legal. It is the mo-st amazing proposition that was ever made. I cannot imagine the Government are serious in asking us to do such a thing. We have been asked to do a good many things and to confirm a good many acts which have lacked authority, but this is the worst of all. The only section of these regulations that we know anything about is the one section which has been read by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, dealing with the delicate question of the relations between capital and labour, and declaring for a principle which may be good or bad, but one that this legislature has never hitherto declared for-that a man shall not be permitted to work anywhere unless he joins a particular trades union. That is a fair question for the labouring men themselves, but we have never before been asked to declare in this House that a man must be obliged to join a trades union in order to be permitted to work. We have no knowledge of this extraordinary budget of laws except the sentence that the leader of the Opposition has quoted. It is too difficult to argue. The idea that this House shall be deliberately asked to pass these laws, not one of which has ever been submitted to the House, and not one of which hon. members know a single thing about, is so extraordinary that one cannot understand how it ever came to be suggested. I do not hesitate to say that this is the most amazing proposition that has ever been made to the Parliament of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to tell my hon. friend that he was for many years a member of a Government that did in effect precisely what we propose now. This is not the first time that this course has been pursued. The same course was taken by his Minister of the Interior on more than one occasion. I myself, some fourteen or fifteen years -ago, induced the

then Minister of the Interior to provide that the very numerous regulations which were enacted by his department under authority of law should be laid upon the table of this House and of the Senate within a certain period after the commencement of the session and that they should have force and effect until the end of the session and no longer unless by resolution of both Houses of Parliament they were affirmed and approved. I venture to say that on more than one occasion a budget of regulations was brought down by the then Minister of the Interior which was quite as lengthy as that which has been laid on the table of the House by the present Minister of the Interior. I recollect very well that I had, when leader of the Opposition, to detail a strong committee of my side of the House and that they had to devote their attention for a week or ten days at a time in order to gather some idea of the substance of the scores of regulations that were brought down. My hon. friend thought it was all right then. What is the difference between what he then supported and what he now condemns? According to my humble comprehension, there is absolutely no difference whatever. There is a certain responsibility cast upon the ministers of the Crown in connection with this matter as well as a responsibility cast upon Parliament and I desire to emphasize what has already been said by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, that if it had not been for these Orders in Council, passed under the War Measures Act, and if it had not been for the unremitting attention and devotion of the Director of Coal Operations, if it had not been for the most anxious consideration day and night given by the Government to his representations when matters were in a most critical state, there would have been intense suffering inflicted upon a very large proportion of the population of this country. It was only by a very narrow margin on many occasions that we succeeded in preventing such conditions in the operation of these coal mines as would have inflicted that suffering. Now the Minister of the Interior, after these regulations have been acted upon for years, simply desires that any doubt shall be removed as to their validity and that no one shall have [DOT] any ground for technical objection or obstruction in a court of law. They are not new orders; they are orders which have been acted upon and which have been put to the test of experience.


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), has but one purpose and that purpose he has communicated to the House-the purpose of preventing any trivial or technical objection being raised to the operation or validity of these orders.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to discuss the merits of the actions of the Controller of Coal. It may be that what my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) says is correct, that what was done had a very beneficial effect. I have not raised that question at all. If all that my right hon. friend says be true, and although he may prove that I have been somewhat inconsistent-suppose that may be admitted for the moment, although I do not admit it-does that alter the merits of the question, does it affect the question of the responsibility of other hon. members of this House? They are not responsible for what I did years ago if I did what the right hon. gentleman says. I have no recollection of the particular orders to which my right hon. friend refers, but according to his own statement these orders proposed to make certain regulations and they were submitted to this House for the approval of Parliament. It was not a case where we were not submitting them to the House for approval. But here is a case where regulations have been passed for months and things have been done under them, some of which may not have been legal, and we are asked now to declare that everything that was done under these regulations was legal. The right hon. gentle-, man says that their object in proposing this legislation is to prevent any question arising hereafter. If they acted lawfully why do they want a whitewashing Act of this kind? If they acted unlawfully, why do they want a whitewashing Act?
If it is lawful then they do not need this thing. I again say to my hon. friend that I have no recollection of the cases mentioned by the Minister of the Interior. I assume that what my hon. friend says in that respect is correct, although I think even as he states it the minister brought down, under authority, a body of regulations which were to be approved if they remained on the table of the House for a given period and were not condemned. However, I do not want to dwell on that. The hon. member may perhaps be right, if it serves any good purpose in saying that I am inconsistent, although I do not think I am. However, that is not the point to-day. The point is, that this Parliament ought not to be
called upon, not only to authorize these things in the future, tout to authorize those things that have been done in the past when they may not be legal. Are we going to set aside all thought of legislative power by this Parliament and allow the Government to lead us blindly not only in endorsing everything as to matters about which we are informed, but also as to things that we do not know anything about?


Robert Laird Borden: In reply to
my hon. friend I have to say that the distinction which he has attempted to draw does not exist. The Orders in Council to which I have alluded were not passed by the Minister of the Interior but by the Governor in Council upon his recommendation, and after having been so passed they came into immediate operation and continued in operation until the end of the following session of Parliament, but no longer unless they were approved. I do not think that very much fault can be found with such a practice because the regulations are of so minute a character , and so exceedingly numerous, that it would have been utterly impossible for Parliament to occupy its time properly in dealing with administrative orders of that character; it would be utterly impossible for Parliament to undertake administration in that way. But inasmuch as important matters of administration might be involved, inasmuch as matters of policy in some cases might be involved, I persuaded the Minister of the Interior of that day to depart from the practice which had prevailed before and to have these Orders in Council operate only until end of next session of Parliament, unless ratified in the meantime by resolution of the House. But what is this situation? Precisely the same. The Government had power under the War Measures Act to make certain Orders in Council. Under these Orders in Council a Director of Coal Operations was appointed. He has done his work and I think he has done it well. I think his work has prevented a great deal of suffering which otherwise might have been inflicted upon the people of this country. The War Measures Act is no longer to be acted upon. Therefore we come to Parliament asking it, from the very necessity of the situation, to continue these Orders in Council until the end of the next session, and no longer, just as the regulations of the Minister of the Interior in the old days were continued until the end of the next following session and no longer.


Arthur Meighen: And now?


Robert Laird Borden: And the game
practice prevails now in the legislation of the Minister of the Interior. Therefore I hope my hon. friend will not think that under the circumstances there is any divergence in this respect from the practice that has been pursued in the past. I alluded to the action of the old Government merely for the purpose of showing the established practice in respect of administrative orders which had to be brought to the consideration of Parliament but which could not be enacted, or dealt with in the first instance by Parliament itself. What was the practice in those days continues to be the practice still in the Department of the Interior; and in dealing with this matter as we did under the War Measures Act, and in bringing the matter to the attention of Parliament as the Minister of the Interior has brought it .today, we are simply carrying out a principle embodied in that practice and acted upon not only by this Government but by the Government which preceded it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has spoken of the Orders in Council that were passed conferring authority upon the Director of Coal Operations and from his remarks I would judge he feels that we are proposing in some way to take away the power that has been given the Director of Coal Operations under these Orders in Council. We have no intention of doing that. As a matter of fact the powers, duties and rights given to the Director of Coal Operations under Orders in Council are expressly continued. Now we are going a long way, I think, in ratifying those Orders in Council, and continuing them for another year. If we had taken exception to giving these powers under Order in Council, and had required them to be expressed in legislation through a Bill brought into the House and discussed in all its stages, we would have perhaps been taking a course more consistent with the protection of public rights in the matter. What we are taking exception to now is that having granted certain rights to the Director of Coal Operations by Order in Council, we are being asked by section 2 to confirm as legal everything that that Director of Coal Operations has done, whether or not he has gone beyond the powers given him by Order in Council. If the Director of Coal Operations has not exceeded any powers given him by Order in Council then all these orders which have been issued by him will be perfectly valid. But if he has exceeded those powers and has gone further than he was authorized to do

by Order in Council, why should not the parties who may be aggrieved have the right of redress? This measure proposes to deprive of redress any man who believes that his rights have been infringed by virtue of the Director of Coal Operations having exceeded his power.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend perhaps does not quite realize the extraordinary ingenuity, on some occasions, of members of my own profession in taking exception on very technical grounds to Orders in Council -or to Statutes for that matter-even if great care has been taken in framing them. These orders have been acted upon for years, and the only purpose of the Minister of the Interior, as expressed by him, is to prevent the possibility of unnecessary and vexatious litigation, upon some minor technical point, whenever some ingenious member of the legal profession would see fit to question the exact validity and the conformity of any one of these orders of the Director of Coal Operations. The Director of Coal Operations is not a lawyer himself; he is a business man. He has had to make these orders offhand, and to couch them in his own language, and I think it would not be conducive to the public interest that minor technical objections should be raised to them on some occasion by any lawyer with an exceedingly acute mind. As I understand it that is all my hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior, has in mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right
hon. friend's remarks mean anything they *nean that the person who has been appointed to this office is a man who may or may not make blunders, and that if he has made blunders there is to be no mode of redress in regard to those blunders. I would ask the Minister of the Interior if any exception has been taken by any one to any order that has been issued. Has any one of them been called in question?
Sir ROBERT BO'1"'"' Before the Minister of the Interior answers the question I would ask my hon. friend whether he knows of any human being in his acquaintance who is not liable to make blunders some time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would answer my right hon. friend by saying that I do not, but inasmuch as human nature is apt to err it is necessary to take precautions to see that when that does occur the rights of third parties shall not be prejudiced thereby. We believe that the Director of Coal Operations, being human, may

have exceeded hie powers in a manner which may have injured third parties, and we on this side are asking that Parliament should not take from any person who has been deprived of his rights the recourse to that redress which the law of the land affords. I am quite prepared to admit with my right hon. friend that lawyers may be fond of technicalities-


Mr. McMASTER:: Question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -but the law means something and justice means something, and we have the law to see that justice is done. I do not think we should take away from individuals who are not lawyers the right of getting redress to /which under the principles of ordinary justice they are entitled.


Arthur Meighen: I have no difficulty at all in answering the hon. member. The Director o-f Coal Operations has been discharging hi6 duties for, I think, three or four years. At 'the present time I am not aware of one single objection on legal grounds to anything he has done; so far as I know the Minister of Labour has never been informed of any; certainly there is no substantial matter in dispute. Undoubtedly all the director's decisions were questioned on grounds of policy and of fairness by both sides, but they were acquiesced in generally. Now, is it going to be a matter of justice or injustice to pass this legislation? Suppose the ingenuity of the legal profession can find that some excess of power was exercised and acquiesced in under an order made, say, three years ago and acted on ever since; is there going to be more suffering and injustice by upsetting 'the whole thing and injuring rights that accrued by virtue of the order,-unscrambling the whole state of affairs, than by quieting and settling matters as acquiesced in by both sides? Which course is going to most conduce to order and justice? If a person can find something technically wrong with any of these orders, that person may not have suffered at all, the defect may be something really trivial and technical in character; but if he upsets the order, who else is going to suffer but innocent parties everywhere? And there will be confusion in control, and parties who ought not to suffer at all are sure to suffer. In a word, there will be a thousand times more suffering by upsetting any of these orders than could possibly follow by Parliament quieting and settling matters as they are at present. I admit that if some substantial question of law were in dispute between the parties it would not ordinarily be right for Parliament to come in and get on the side of either party in an endeavour to settle the dispute. But that is not the case here at all; there is no question in dispute that I know of. I do not know whether there is likely to be any dispute, but clearly as both sides have acquiesced in everything to date, if there be any dispute it must be purely technical or we would have heard of it.
And look at what would happen if that question when raised should be upheld by the courts. That is the reason for our taking this course. It is not that we are getting on the side of any litigant, it is not that we are seeking to do injustice; we are seeking to stop a process that might lead to great injustice.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not present as he might gather from the observations of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of the Interior that he would have an opportunity to save a great deal of money if he could just simply abolish the courts, because that is what is proposed to be done here. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior have spoken of the ingenuity of the legal profession. Do they imagine that that ingenuity is likely to be confined to seeking flaws in legislation of this character? Do they not know that that ingenuity can be applied to question-' ing every Act we pass here? I venture to say that for a $500 fee you can engage an able lawyer to raise doubts as to the propriety of any Act of Parliament. But we do not consider that a sufficient reason for validating everything that has been done. The Minister of the Interior says that so far as he knows there is no question in dispute between the parties. If 'that is so, what is the necessity for this legislation? And if there is any question in dispute, why should we undertake to turn out of court any man in this Dominion who has or imagines he has a grievance? You can dismiss any man's case by saying it is of a trivial or a technical character; but no point of law is trivial or technical to the man whose honour, person or property is affected. And I say that all the arguments advanced 'by the Prime Minister regarding the ingenuity of the legal profession furnish no sufficient reason why we should turn out of court any man whose interests may be affected by these orders.


Robert Laird Borden: I think what is proposed by the Minister of the Interior is
3:366

very mild indeed compared with some legislation to which my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) committed himself in days gone hy, because I can recollect that he caused to be passed by the Legislature of Nova Scotia an Act taking away the right of action from individuals. Surely this is a very mild dose of Parliamentary ratification compared with that Act.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend shows the weakness of his case when he undertakes to refer to some alleged legislation which I was connected with in times past. I do not know to what the right hon. gentleman refers, and I do not think he has good ground for what he states. But surely to argue that because I did a wrong some years ago is good reason for the action of the Government in this instance, shows the inherent weakness of the position now taken.


Arthur Meighen: The member for Shelburne and Queen's rose in his place and pronounced this legislation the most amazing in character and principle that he had ever heard of.


William Stevens Fielding: I think so.


Arthur Meighen: Then it is not at all
relevant to show that he was himself a party to like legislation on other occasions?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Two blacks do not
make a white.


Arthur Meighen: But is this the most
amazing legislation if he himself has put through legislation of the same character? If he had not himself made the comparison, perhaps he might shield himself behind the fact that two wrongs do not make a right. But he stated to the House that there had never been anything like this since the days of Confederation. We have shown that he is wrong.


William Stevens Fielding: No, you have not.


Arthur Meighen: We can show the same thing on the pages of every statute since Confederation.


An hon. MEMBER:: All right; show it.


Arthur Meighen: Only last year what
was done when the Newsprint Control was continued? Why did not my hon. friend pronounce that to be an amazing innovation? Newsprint Controller, first of all stalled by Order in Council under the War Measures Act, was confirmed in office, his actions were approved, and litigation was

stopped. The regulations that the Prime Minister refers to were brought into this House and had to be approved by this Parliament. Never have they been written out in the law, they have always been laid on the table of the House, and therefore one might say that they have been approved in the aggregate. Would any one suggest that we ought to embody that whole volume of Orders in Council in a statute?


Mr. BUREAU:: Why not?


Arthur Meighen: There is no other way of doing it than the way we are following now. It is the proper thing to do, and certainly will conduce to less injustice than any other course we might take.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I have ventured to cite only one of these orders, but I think perhaps it would be well to give the House some further information as to the nature of others. If the minister looks at regulation 124 he will find it provides that nine hours' pay shall be given for eight hours' work. I want to ask my hon. friends opposite:	Is that a
principle that we as a Parliament wish to endorse? If it is to be adopted for the miners in British Columbia, why should it not be adopted also for the miners in other provinces? Why should we legislate to give nine hours' pay for eight hours' work to one body of men who happen to belong to one particular trade union, and at the same time enact that no man shall get the benefit of that increased pay unless he belongs to that particular union? It is not consonant with the defence of individual rights and liberties for Parliament to enact such legislation. Then take order 136, which gives boys over eighteen years of age the pay of a man. If a boy of eighteen is to receive a man's pay in these particularly favoured regions, why should he not get it in other parts of the Dominion?
The real point at issue is not the particular local situation in British Columbia, because the laws of this Parliament are made for the whole Dominion; it is whether Parliament itself shall be brought into contempt by enacting a mass of legislation of which it is wholly uninformed. Here is a mass of typewritten orders of practically 1,000 pages, fixing the hours of wages, the rates to be charged for the different mining operations, the price to be paid for coal, and providing for all kinds of special conditions which may or may not arise. Now, if the Director of Coal Operations has exercised his powers in an honest and

fair way, no one is going to suffer by allowing matters to stand as they are. Hon. gentlemen opposite have on previous occasions said that we should let well enough alone. When my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) tells us there is no dispute or disagreement regarding these particular regulations, I reply:	Leave well enough alone, but do
not ask this Parliament to enact legislation which will require nine hours' pay to be paid for eight hours' work; which will allow a. workman to work in certain mines only if he belongs to a particular union; which will fix a definite price for coal which cannot be changed either way whether the operator wishes to change it or not; which changes the rate of wages, the hours of labour, and other matters affecting the miners irrespective of whether they wish it or not. There are principles that are fundamental in this matter. It is bad enough to carry on industy in that fashion under Orders in Council, it is wholly inexcusable for Parliament to give its sanction to that kind of paternalism and favouritism.


Mr. ROBB:: 
Arthur Meighen: The point raised by the hon. member is well worth a moment's discussion. Parliament, by ratifying these orders, does not support any principle such as the hon. member calls in question; it does not take any side one way or the other. In this emergent case, in order that coai might be produced and that people might live rather than freeze, it was found neces-211
sary to make orders of this character. It is in the public interest that these orders as between these parties be confirmed; that is all. Parliament takes no stand in favour of nine hours' wages for eight hours' work or for eight hours' wages for nine hours' work, nor does Parliament take a stand in favour of the closed shop or anything else of that kind. Parliament simply says that a settlement of a dispute which, had it not been settled, would have brought great hardship on the people of Western Canada, shall stand as made under the circumstances prevailing at that time. No academic question is involved; we are simply confirming settlements that have been made of disputes in a particular area for a particular purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What we are doing now does not relate merely to the past. We are making these orders binding for another year, until after the next session of Parliament. When clause 1 was before the committee I suggested that instead of making these Orders in Council binding until the end of the next session we should provide for their expiration at the end of the present fiscal year. But the minister refused to do that, he was so keen on extending the period that much longer. So what we are doing now is to legislate" on these matters of wages, hours or work and prices for the period of another year.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is not quite right. We do not fix wages or hours of work; we say that orders so made were good and that they shall stand as good. But
n	under the powers of the Orders
3 p.m. in Council which we ratify, they are alterable at any time by the man who made them. If they are found not to work well between now and the end of the next session of Parliament, they can be altered. We are simply holding the situation and determining that what has been done is legal, subject to the same powers of alteration as have all along existed.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: My hon. friend says that this proposal does not support any principle one way or the other, but he will admit that if we adopt this legislation we are creating a precedent which will be relied upon in the future. For example, if the employees on the Government railways or of the Public Works Department ask for nine hours' pay for eight hours' work, the Government or Parliament cannot' very well refuse their request because they have already made a



similar arrangement with the miners in British Columbia. That is the point which I find some difficulty about. I would like the minister to explain how he is going to get rid of the precedent if Parliament adopts it in this Bill.


Arthur Meighen: ' Parliament does not adapt a precedent. Parliament simply ratifies something that has been done. In itself it may have been right or it may have been wrong, but in the circumstances under which it was performed it was right and served an essential purpose. Even were a closed shop wrong, it would be far better to have a closed shop than frozen homes; we chose the one in place of the other. Now we say: do not let that be called in question; if you do there will be great confusion and great injustice. There is no precedent . about it. It may have been, as a matter of principle, right or wrong; but as a matter of emergent action it was undoubtedly right and effective.
Mr. MACKENZIE King: Does the minister see where he is getting to in the matter of future disputes? If the argument is to prevail that there must be either a closed shop or frozen homes, we may expect a good deal in the way of industrial controversy in this country that we have not hitherto experienced. Why imagine a situation when there is no ground for so doing? But my purpose in rising w.as to ask the minister if he has copies of the Orders in Council themselves.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I will send them across to my hon. friend.


Mr. CROTHERS:: Prior to 1911, when the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was Minister of Labour, he experienced great difficulties in dealing with labour troubles in that part of the country that we have been talking about,- part of Alberta and the southeasterly part of British Columbia. He did everything possible to allay the unrest that prevailed and to overcome the labour difficulties that had been experienced for some years. When we came into power in 1911 we experienced difficulties, perhaps not quite so serious as those which my hon. friend had to deal with, but difficulties just the same. Subsequently we came to the conclusion that it would be in the interests of the country to appoint a competent man to be on the ground and to give him power to deal with these difficulties as they arose. We thought then and [DOT]we think how that we found a man, in the person of the present Director

of Coal Operations, who was exceedingly well qualified to deal with such matters; a man who 'had had large experience in dealing with labour men, who had a business of his own, and who sacrificed a great deal, at our earnest solicitation, to accept this position. We could not have found in Canada a man better qualified to deal with such matters. A man of kindly disposition and conciliatory temperament, we felt sure that he	would succeed	in	getting
the employer and the employees to look at things from the same viewpoint, in the interests of the country. At that time we had authority under the War Measures Act to do certain things. To that War Measures Act Parliament agreed in August, 1914, without a dissenting voice, ilf I remember aright. It conferred certain powers upon the Governor in Council because it would have been impossible to'deal through Parliament with conditions that might arise from time to time while we were engaged in the Great War. It was under this power given to the Governor in Council that these orders were passed after August, 1914. The Coal Director was given jurisdiction over the whole province of Alberta and that portion of British Columbia from its easterly boundary to the summit of the Rocky Mountains. During the time Mr. Armstrong has been Director of Coal Operations in that vast area where there are about fifty different companies operating and producing coal, he has male all these orders. His function generally was to get the miners and their employers together and reach an agreement as to an infinite number of things-wages, hours of labour, and other conditions. The conditions differ in the fifty different companies that are operating mines in the whole province of Alberta. and the southeasterly part of British Columbia. It has been said here that 144 agreements have been entered into and sanctioned by order of the Coal Director. What happens if these orders go by the board? Some of them may extend for another year. I fancy that there are agreements entered into under orders made by Mr. Armstrong that will not terminate for another year, until the end of the next session of Parliament. You can see in a moment that if those orders are all to be done away with and we are to start in and scrutinize all these orders that have been made affecting the fifty different companies in that vast territory, we could not do it during this Parliament because we would have to hear both sides. It strikes me that it would be a very serious matter

indeed to interfere in any way with these orders that have been passed by Mr. Armstrong. It would probably bring about chaos in the mining operations in that whole area. Therefore, I regard it as of the utmost importance that sanction be given now not only to the Orders in Council touching the appointment of the Coal Director, but to the orders which he has made, the setting aside of which would bring about very serious labour troubles in that whole area.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These Orders in Council should have been brought down along with the orders of the Director of Coal Operations. I say further, they should have been laid on the table of the House as soon as Parliament met.


Arthur Meighen: II am not sure but what they have been laid on the Table. Undoubtedly they were published in the Gazette.
(Mr. MACKENZIE KING: Now that the Orders in Council have been produced I should like to read a paragraph or two setting forth the powers given to the Director of -Coal Operations. I think Parliament will feel that with these powers about enough is being done in the way of arbitrary enactment. The Order in Council of the 25t-h of June, 1917, reads in part as follows:
2.	The Director shall have power to make all necessary investigations and inquiries respecting wages, holidays, hours of labour, and other labour conditions, and respecting all other matters necessary to, connected with or affecting the cost of and the production of coal and coke, the resumption of the production of the same, and the continuance of such production in the said district during the present war, and for three months after the end of the said war.
3.	The owner, agent and manager of every coal mine and the owner, agent and manager of every coke producing plant within the said District 18 and where the owner of any such mine or coke producing plant is a Company, every director of the Company shall comply with the orders and direction of the Director in respect of the matters specified in the last preceding paragraph and generally in connection with the management, operation and use of the mine or of the coke producing plant as the case may be and if he fails to do so he shall be guilty of a summary offence against these regulations.
Then in the Order in 'Council of the 15th of November, 1917, there is this additional power:
And whereas it is deemed expedient that the said obligations should be imposed upon the said employees, and that the Director of Coal Operations should be authorized to notify the Commissioner of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police of any failure to observe his orders and directions on the part either of said own-2141
ers, agents and managers or said employees, and that the said Commissioner should be instructed to enforce the observance of such orders and directions;
Therefore,
Certain changes are made, of which the following is the last one cited:
Upon the failure on the part of any such owner, agrent, manager or employee to comply with any of the orders and directions aforesaid the Director shall notify the Commissioner of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police of such failure, whose duty it shall then be to take such means as he may deem expedient for the enforcement of such orders and directions.
Here we have powers given by the Governor in Council to the Director of Coal Operations to do almost anything he pleases and to authorize the Northwest Mounted Police to come in and compel obedience to his orders not only by the managers, but by all the workmen in these particular mines. I think that is going about the limit by way of arbitrary enactment in dealing with industrial questions; and to come now to Parliament and say that in addition to all those powers which have already been given, and which may be exercised at any time, we should give legislative sanction to every order that has been made, whether it is in accordance with these general powers or not, is simply making Parliament a mere echo of the will of a single man who has been put in the position of an -autocrat oveT a large portion of the industrial properties of this country.


Arthur Meighen: The House at this stage may not appreciate as keenly as some of us do who were very close to the difficulty, the circumstances that obtained when these orders were passed. Undoubtedly the powers given were wide. Although I was not the minister directly in charge-indeed, I am not now the minister who is responsible initially for this Bill-still as a member of the Government I very well recall the anxious periods that we did go through just arising from and in -relation to these coal disputes in Western Canada. Tt is easy at this distance of time to look back and say that these are wide autocratic powers, and that this man was put in a position of absolute control, and surrounded with the Mounted Police to do his work. That was done, but if the hon. gentleman had had before him the perils we were faced with at that time, he would have thought it was a time for real action instead of a time for disputation and nice academic discussions about power. The steps we took had to be taken. It was a question whether they would prove effective. We

were abused at that time chiefly by the coal operators, the owners of the mines, and the rulings of Mr. Armstrong were not only impugned but ridiculed as leaning altogether on the side of labour. But Mr. Armstrong felt as we did, that the thing that had to be got was coal, and we got the coal. The miners acquiesced and the operators acquiesced in Mr. Armstrong's orders, and surely it is the part of wisdom now to see that the question is settled, although it is not all through yet. The difficulties are not all passed by any means. I think if the leader of the Opposition went through those mines it would not take very long to convince him that just some such system of operation and of settlement of disputes as has been installed must be continued for some little time, at all events. I do not think it would take the miners themselves long to convince him or anybody else that that is essential. What I want to impress upon the committee is this, that standing here two thousand miles away- and also in warm weather-and two years distant from the most crucial time, it is very easy to under-estimate the emergency that really confronted the Government at that time, and not only once but times almost without number. One trouble followed in the wake of another, and the very gravest apprehensions filled the minds of the people of Western Canada as to what ultimately would be the result. A government does not very often get credit for the errors that it does not commit. Here is a case where the result was as we sought, where grave danger and grave suffering were avoided by this means. The only question now is whether or not some one yet unknown is to be allowed to frustrate the good that has been done. So far as I am aware there is no question in dispute; there certainly cannot be any substantial question in dispute, and it is in the interest of the whole community that no one shall be allowed to go back and rip up the whole proceedings right from the beginning and throw the country into chaos.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The minister says that the difficulty is far from being settled and that there is still need of such legislation as was enacted by those Orders in Council. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are passing legislation here for which we shall be responsible, and we are doing it without knowing exactly what is its character. That is what I complain about. The rules of Parliament require that every piece of legislation that is passed must have three readings; the 
principle of the measure which is enacted must be discussed on the second reading and the details considered in committee, so that the public may be properly safeguarded. It is but right that this should be so, and I say that the rules of Parliament must now prevail. This country, among other misfortunes, has suffered from a dangerous disease, that of being ruled by Orders in Council. We thought that the period of such government was over, and it is over, at least so far as the determination of the people is concerned. The legislation which will be enacted in this Bill should follow the ordinary course of parliamentary enactment, and Parliament must be supreme in the future. The fact that this particular thing may have been done in the past does not alter the general principle at all. We are being told too often that the same things have happened in the past. Well, Sir, there are many people in this country at the present time, in all the provinces of Canada, and particularly among the younger generation^ that are not going to endorse and approve of things that have been done or made in the past simply because they belong to the past. The tu quoque argument is a weak one.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is worn out.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a weak argument and it has never been used in so cynical a manner as this afternoon.


Arthur Meighen: I find no fault with the principle which the hon. member urges, but I do not see what application it has to this ease. Has this Bill not to be read three times in the Senate?


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: Has its principle not
been discussed on the second reading? Why, this Bill has passed through several stages. It was introduced and a debate was precipitated at that stage. It was read in the Senate a first time, a second time, and a third time.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister knows
very well that I am referring to the Orders in Council and not to the Bill. .


Arthur Meighen: 1 know that, and I shall come to the point in a moment.


Mr. VIEN:: The Bill does not say anything.


Arthur Meighen: It was considered in
committee in the Senate, read the third time

and passed. Here it has been introduced, read the first and second times and now is in Committee of the Whole. Now, the hon. member says that the Orders in Council have not been read. Does he want them read?


Ernest Lapointe: I want to read them,
surely.


Arthur Meighen: Well, they have been
two days on the Table.


Thomas Vien: They have not been distributed.


Arthur Meighen: If hon. members want
to read the Orders in Council and are in earnest about it no one has ever denied them the right to do so. They have never asked for them, and if they are in earnest about wanting to read them I will not stand in their way. So what point is there in the hon. member's contention? Why, in the legislation passed before, all that was required to ratify the regulations was a resolution. All these preliminaries on which the hon. gentleman lays such stress, namely, the first, second and third readings, did not have to be gone through at all; the matter was passed by a resolution in the House. This Bill has to go through the various stages of every Bill, and while it is in progress hon. members surely have an opportunity of reading the orders of the coal director or the Orders in Council if they so desire. Consequently the indignation which my hon. friend simulates is poorly based. If he wants time to study these orders I do not think that any one is going to deny him that right; but I fancy that after he has done that he will come back in about the same disposition as he is now in, having a grievance of which there is no justification.


Jacques Bureau: The answer which my hon. friend has given is his customary reply. He dances so well around a point that we see nothing; we just hear a whizz and lose sight of the point altogether. This is only quibbling. There are certain things which we have to ratify, but the substance of the Bill, which consists in 150 orders which were issued by the Fuel Controller, is not printed. My hon. friend from Quebec East has raised a point which I think is well taken. I say, Mr. Chairman, that either the Government had a right to make these orders or they did not. If they had the right to pass these Orders in Council, and there is nothing improper about the matter, why should there be any necessity for legislation now? If the orders issued by the Fuel Controller are equitable and
perfectly satisfactory, and there is nothing of which the Government need be apprehensive, what objection is there to having the whole matter freely studied? Why come before Parliament and ask hon. members to ratify orders about which they know nothing? The contention of the hon. member (Mr. Lapointe) is that the Bill does not properly present to Parliament the real purport of the legislation which we are asked to pass. We are called upon, without having had any opportunity to study them, to pass upon some 150 orders touching all sorts of subjects, and I submit that Parliament is entitled to have attached to the Bill, as so many schedules or whatever you may choose to term them, the various orders that were issued, and we ought to know precisely what they are. Is Parliament going to lay down as a principle that when the Governor in Council has authorized a man, under a measure of expediency, to do certain things, without any examination we are going to ratify what is done even though we may deprive of any redress some one who has been wronged? I think the principle is vicious and I for one cannot support it. These Orders in Council were either necessary or they were not at the time they were made. If they were necessary and the extraordinary circumstances of the time at which they were issued justified them, even though perhaps they may have been somewhat autocratic, the Government ought to have nothing to fear, and no court in the country, taking into consideration the peculiar conditions that called for them, would condemn the issuing of them. On the other hand, if a wrong was done to any one, this Parliament cannot under any circumstances commit itself to any act that will deprive that person of the right of redress. My hon. friend says that these orders have been on the Table for two days. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have been sitting here very late at night. We were here until one o'clock night before last and until midnight last night and the House now meets at two o'clock in the afternoon. Furthermore, we have been attending the Railway Committee at ten o'clock. Does my hon. friend, in view of that fact, seriously suggest that we could find time to read such a multitude of orders? It is not fair. Besides, only one copy has been tabled. These orders ought to be printed and the people should know what rules were made by the Fuel Controller; We are asked to ratify those orders now; you ask that the authority of the Fuel Controller be continued for a further period.

The orders which we are now asked to ratify were issued under Orders in Council passed in June and July in 1917 and February, 1918. At that time conditions were abnormal. The minds of the people were unsettled, and the necessity for prompt action might have existed. It is now two years since the signing of the Armistice, however, and we are asked that the Fuel Controller, who was given powers under extraordinary circumstances in a time of great emergency, shall have his authority continued for another year. There must be some reason for this. We are not in a state of war to-day, and the same emergency does not exist. Parliament is now in session, and if there are any particular cases which the minister knows of or whioh he expects may arise in the near-future why should he not inform Parliament of the fact so that we may know w'hat the authority of the Fuel Controller ought to be in these cases. I submit that the point of my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) is absolutely well taken, and that it is not an answer for the minister to say that this Bill will follow the usual procedure. What we want to analyse and to study are the orders issued and I content that the substance of those orders should be made known to the people. They ought at least to be attached, as a schedule or as exhibits, to the Bill and they ought to be discussed in committee before they are approved of.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Did not the leader of
the Opposition pay in his speech this afternoon that he would have agreed to the Government's proposition, in regard to this matter if it had not been that they proposed to carry it on for another year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that
we had gone very far in allowing the first section to pass which extended the powers given the Director of Coal Operations under the several Orders in Council mentioned; that we had gone quite far enough in giving him an opportunity of continuing orders which he may have issued, but that we are going too far in seeking to legalize any orders which may not have been in accordance with the powers given him.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I would like
to be as clear as to whether the validation of this order will have any bearing whatsoever upon the powers of this official. For this purpose I see these orders are continued in operation until the end of the next session of Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: If the orders are in
every sense, technically, and otherwise unimpeachable they will have validity through the sustenance of the War Measures Act. But they would not after the War Measures Act had passed out of existence; consequently they would be of no value now. The Justice Department has never affirmed that as a (matter of law but the better opinion is that their validity rests upon the War Measures Act and that when that Act passes out of existence they must be renewed. It is represented that we are past the war, past the Armistice and there is not the same necessity as formerly existed. It is not more than three days since that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House drew the attention of the Government, most forcibly and rightly so, to the rather serious coal situation at the present hour. Is it well in face of that situation, that everything should fall to the ground in district 18 and that we should be precipitated back into a condition where we will have strikes instead of work, idleness instead of labour? Is it not better that we should continue that formal control which all along has been responsible for coal production in the tremendous coal area df Western Canada? That is what the Bill does. I do not find any objection to hon. gentlemen wanting every opportunity to study the orders but hon. gentlemen who resist this Bill are seeking to bring us back into that condition. That is at all events the goal towards which they are moving whether they intend to or not. It is urged that these orders should be printed as an appendix to the Bill. Why do we not do that with all regulations that are made? We would hardly be able to get the volume of our statues through the door if we were to follow that practice. These Orders in Council in themselves would make a pretty cumbersome statute. It is only right that hon. gentlemen should be able to see them to find if there is anything they can add to them. I do not believe they think they can. These orders are orders which have proved effective. Prima facie, that is sufficient for the House. If there is anything that could be called attention to, any litigation, any dispute that ought to be decided, Parliament should not get on one side or the other to the dispute. But theTe is nothing of that kind, we must ask Parliament to remove the possibility of any one, on trivial or technical grounds, tearing the whole thing down, obliging us to go way back to the beginning again and

bringing chaos and confusion. That is the only purpose of the Bill? I am introducing it as representing the 'Minister of Labour.
I do not tfhink there is any one in Canada who has as intimate a knowledge or appreciation oif the difficulties in that district as the present Minister of Labour. I do not believe that we ,could ask that this Bill be passed if we were not thoroughly convinced that it was essential to take care of the conditions now prevailing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If section one is allowed to stand, would the Director of Coal Operations not have power to continue all these orders?	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: He could continue certainly until Parliament legislated the other way. That is what he ,has been able to do right along.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are asked to approve of orders which the Director of Coal Operations could continue without legislation.


Arthur Meighen: No. He could under
the War Measures Act but his powers under that Act have lapsed; he cannot do anything now unless we give him power to do it.	,	i


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have given him poweT by section one of this Bill.


Arthur Meighen: That still leaves this point: that if in any way unknown to himself-and unknown to us as far as that goes -he may have in a technical sense exceeded his powers or not particularly followed them, then some one by proceedings in court might go right hack to the whole institution of that order, throw into confusion all that has been done, and set up contentions here and contentions there that would bring the whole coal district into a state of paralysis. Anybody can see that. Consequently we want to confirm what has been done, not because it was wrong but because it has been acquiesced in, and because it is in the public interest that it should remain.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: As member for a constituency which is affected by the measure which has been discussed I would say that during the period the commissioner has been in existence there has been more industrial harmony in the southern Alberta coal field than at any time previous. The mines have operated more regularly, and there has 'been less conflict between the employers and the employees than in any similar period of years in the past. It is
true that there is a difference of opinion on the part of some of the employees over some of the orders that have been issued; but I make this statement: That if there had not been any -coal commissioner in existence that -same 'trouble would have arisen, because the operators themselves, in their association and as individuals, would have demanded that similar orders apply in their mines. A rather peculiar situation has arisen. Prior to the appointment of the coal commiissioner there was a great deal of hostility on the part of the operators towards the United Mine Workers of America; but owing to difficulty that arose a few years ago, and when -there was an attempt to form a new association, the operators practically ran into the arms of the United Mine Workers and they now demand that there shall not be any other organization in the mines but it. Therefore I say that -even without the order from the coal commissioner, concerning the United Mine Workers, that -has been mentioned the operators would have demanded the same thing even if they -had been operating apart from the commissioner altogether.
I-t must be remembered that this order does not apply to all the coal mines in the province of Alberta. It only . applies-I think I am safe in saying this-to the mines within the Operators' Association, because I know of a mine in the Taber field east of the city of Lethbridge, that is not under the control of the coal commissioner. The mines within the Operators' Association are under his control. Now what has happened under the rule of the coal commissioner? We had very little trouble in the coal fields of Alberta at the beginning of the winter season-in the late fall and the early winter. I only know of one case since the coal commissioner was appointed where there was serious trouble in the mines. That was over an order that was issued affecting the mines of' British Columbia, but that particular trouble, according to my recollection, did not take place during the critical season. There has been under this system an assurance of a coal supply that was not guaranteed to us in the years before the coal commissioner was appointed. I confidently assert that the mines have operated more regularly during the last four years than they have ever operated before, and there has been less conflict of opinion than previously over the question of wages. What has happened in connection with the question of wages? There was an investigation under this

system, in regard to the cost of living in the communities where the mines operate, and as a result of that inquiry an increase was granted to the employees in nearly every case, and I think I am safe in saying that the miners themselves were satisfied with that increase. The chief difficulty over any orders that have been issued have been in regard to hours and in regard to the recognition of a certain union; but I repeat that that difficulty would have existed even if there had not- been a coal commissioner, because the Operators' Association itself was determined that only one main organization would be recognized in those mines, and even in the absence of a coal commissioner they would have demanded that that union should be recognized. I do not think we could have overcome that difficulty by the coal commissioner not issuing any order in that connection. The difficulty in Alberta is peculiar to that province, and is a conflict between two groups of men in the labour world. The operators are strongly in favour of one organization, and there is a group of men who are in favour of another. It is true that the commissioner interfered and Issued an order that dealt with that particular situation, but even if he had not done so, even if he had refrained from dealing with the situation, the operators would still have persisted in their demand that that particular union be recognized.
On the whole I am not disputing the points that have been raised, particularly by the leader of the Opposition, in order to give full publicity to these orders. What I am saying is that according to my experience and my knowledge-coming as I do from a coal field that is largely affected by this legislation-there has been more peace and harmony since we have had a coal commissioner than there was prior to the appointment of that official.
Another point I would like to make is this: Usually when there is hostility to legislation that is being introduced into Parliament we hear about it both from the miners and the operators. This Bill has been discussed in the Senate, it is generally known that it is before Parliament, and I have not received one single protest from a miners union or from an operator in my constituency or in Southern Alberta.


Michael Clark: I listened with the very greatest care to the arguments on this clause. With regard to what I would call giving this official reasonable legislative sanctuary from acts taken in the emergencies of war I think the argument of

the Government would carry me along with them. I do not think that it would be wise to leave an official, who acted under the pressure of war conditions, liable eighteen months after the Armistice to litigation now that the war has happily ended in our favour.
With regard to the continuance of these powers my mind, I must say, till an advanced period of the debate was in doubt. I think the committee knows what my general attitude is on this question. The sooner we get away from boards, controllers, commissions and other things appointed in war time, as a general principle, the better; but perhaps one needs to add that the sooner people get quite sane again the better. I cannot help thinking and feeling that the continued existence of these abnormal controls is an irritant upon the public mind. In Anglo-Saxon countries we have been used to live in an atmosphere of freedom, and as a general principle I do-not recede from that point. However, I have a very large amount of faith in my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan), and I must say that I have been tremendously impressed by what has just fallen from him. Here is an hon. gentleman living in the locality where these troubles have existed, and where they might exist again, who tells us that the operations of the commissioner and the state of affairs that existed during the war and up to, the present time have led to the greatest harmony in that country that- he has ever known. Well, Mr. Chairman, I for one would have very great hesitation at this juncture in voting that we should run any risk in this matter. For some period during seven successive months last winter we had zero temperature in that province. That is the time when coal is needed, and I should hesitate in taking any steps which would, as my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior put it, perhaps throw the whole business into a state of chaos. If this question comes to a vote I shall therefore with a clear conscience be compelled to support the Government.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) argues that the coal controller has become necessary. If so,, and he is to become a permanent official, why should not this Parliament pass legislation defining his powers? This is not . the proper way to do it. The war time is-over. These Orders in Council were passed to meet emergencies arising during the war. If we find that the experimnest we made at

that time to meet emergencies ought to be continued, let us cut out the Orders in Council and bring in an Act of Parliament providing that a fuel controller shall be appointed, and defining his powers.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us get back to normal.


Arthur Meighen: If the Government were convinced that this was a permanent situation clearly it would be the act of wisdom to adopt the course my hon. friend suggests; but the Government is not so convinced. We feel that it is essential to hold the situation for the time being and leave Parliament next session either to legislate its permanence or to let it go out of existence. For myself, I hope the latter course will be possible-a hope that I am sure is shared by every hon. member. But surely the right thing to do now is merely to hold on and leave Parliament free.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I made the statement that the operations of the Coal Commissioner applied only to the operators within the Coal Operators' Association. I have heard the statement made that the commissioner had power to rule that the operators of a mine that did not want to be linked up with the Coial Operators' Association, and did not want to comply with his orders, must accept his orders. But my understanding is that his orders apply only to the mines that are within the Association, not to all mines in the province of Alberta.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think my hon. friend is mistaken as to that. By a subsequent Order in Council the jurisdiction of Mr. Armstrong was extended to take in all the mines in province of Alberta and in that portion of British Columbia between the easterly border and the summit of the Rocky Mountains.
IMr. BUCHANAN: I might point out that some operators of mines that have been in the Coal Operators' Association for a number of years broke away from it either last spring or late this winter and were acting independently of the Association. I know of one mine, the Western Canada Coal Company at Tabor, where the men were not expected to fulfil the order as to joining a particular union; it was practically an open shop, and if the men organized another union they were allowed to join it. Seemingly they were not affected by this order. I would make this statement from my knowledge, that the order has not been applied in the way that is mentioned here, that is, to all the mines in the province of Alberta.


Arthur Meighen: To district 18.


William Ashbury Buchanan: Some of the mine
operators have been willing to accept this order, among others the operators association. There are other mines in the province that did not come under that order at all.


Arthur Meighen: The order was apparently made to apply on the 20th of February, 1918, to all coal mines and coke producing plants situated in the province of Alberta and also those in the province of British Columbia eastward from the summit of the Rocky Mountains.


William Ashbury Buchanan: My point is that I do not think the Coal Commissioner should be given such drastic powers as to compel a mine operator to do something that he does not want to do in respect to the employment of men. If he can operate his mine successfully with certain men, although they do not belong to a union, he should be allowed to do it. The coal operators belonging to the Association are agreeable to the order that has been issued, and I am speaking of those outside the Association.
IMr. CROTHERS: I think I am speaking within the mark, Mr. Chairman, when I advise my hon. friend that the Director of Coal Operations never interfered where the employer and the employee at any particular mine got on agreeably.
Section agreed to on division: Yeas, 99; nays, 50.
Bill reported.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Next sitting of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Meighen moves that the said Bill be now read the third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


William Stevens Fielding: Does the hon. gentleman intend to press that motion?


Arthur Meighen: I did not know that it was objected to. I shall not ask that the Bill be now read the third time, if there is objection.
Motion for third reading stands.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) the House went into Committee
[Stage Direction]
on Bill No. 141, respecting Canadian National Railways, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:
Mr. McKENZIE:: I have not had an opportunity to study this Bill very closely. If we are Building and extending lines in the West, what are the chances of their paying? Will they pay any better than the roads that the Government are now running?


Mr. J. D. REID:: This is the Bill which was referred to the Railway Committee a few days ago. Charters are being asked for the extension of three lines, one is from Prince Albert north; another from a. point near the American border, and the third an extension of what we call the Turtleford Branch. The mileage in each case as about fifty miles. The extensions are to provide newly settled districts with necessary railway facilities. Hon. gentlemen will remember that when the legislation respecting the Canadian National Railways was put through it was understood that no further extension should be carried' out or no new lines built in connection with the Canadian National Railways without charters being first granted by Parliament. This is not to provide for the building of some new line that has not been considered before; it is simply to provide for these three small extensions. Probably about half the work will be done on each of the three extensions this year.


William Stevens Fielding: Since my hon. friend is going to provide for the building of extensions amounting to about 150 miles in the West, I want to take advantage of the'oppor-tunity to ask him not to forget that very little line of three miles, practically a siding, which is necessary to connect the town of Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, with the main railway line. I may use the words that my hon. friend has used: this is not something new or unknown; the line which is needed is simply an extension of three miles in order to reach the centre of population at Lockeport. I do not want to say more than to ask the minister to give the matter consideration.


Mr. CALDWELL:: While the minister is on the subject of the extension of railways, I wish to direct his atention to a matter which I believe has been already favourably considered,-that of the building of a short line of railway in New Brunswick to connect the Canadian National Railway system in the Maritime Provinces and Eastern Quebec with the Maine Central, which is our natural outlet from the Maritime Provinces. Practically three-quarters of the freight that originates on the Canadian
[Mr. Meighen.l
National railway in the Maritime Provinces and Eastern Quebec is destined for the New England States. To-day we have either to pay the Canadian Pacific a large toll,-they have the connecting link between the Canadian National railways
4 p.m. and the Maine Central-or ship, via the north shore of New Brunswick, which is a very long route indeed. The route to which 1 refer has been surveyed. The line would be 22 miles long, and I believe that the estimated cost of construction is $1,000,000. But the line would pay for itself in ten years, if not less. Moreover, the St. John and Quebec railway, which the Government took over recently and are operating, is carrying on at quite a heavy loss every year. If this connecting link was built, all the freight originating on the Canadian National railways in the Maritime Provinces would be routed over the St. John and Quebec railway 'to reach this connecting line, so that the St. John and Quebec railway would be made a paying instead of a losing proposition. The building of this short line would be a good proposition from the point of view of the Government. I know that money is scarce and that we are all talking economy, and, I hope, trying to practice it. At the same time, it is often more economical to spend money that will bring you a return than not to spend it at all. While I do not know the merits of the lines proposed to be extended under this Bill, I do know the merits of this line which I am now advocating, and I think that the minister knows them as well. I hope that while he is on this subject he will give this matter very earnest consideration.


John Flaws Reid: I am familiar with the proposal to which my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell) refers. About four years ago it was suggested that he Government should build that connecting line; it was shown that its construction would result in a great saving in the matter of traffic originating in the lower province and destined to the Eastern States. On account of the financial situation, action was delayed. There is no doubt that the construction of this line should be carried out. But just at present the people in that district are not suffering actual lack of transportation facilities, though they may have to pay a little more for freight. The Canadian Pacific as well as the Canadian National Railway Company will for some years be compelled to build extensions of lines in the western provinces. People are going into unsettled districts forty or fifty miles

from the railway, on the 'basis of the promise or the expectation that railways will go into that part of the country. It is a new country; we are trying to get settlers there, and we imust provide them with railway facilities at the earliest possible moment. I have no doubt at all that when we ge't back to normal conditions the Government will take up a scheme such as the one suggested and deal rwith these matters in the way that it is practically understood by the department and the railway officials that they should be carried out.


Mr. PARENT:: I was under the impression that the Canadian Northern had gone .out of existence when the Government took over the property, but here we find the name cropping up again. This Bill is to empower the Canadian Northern to build branch lines. Who are the directors of this company that is called the Canadian Northern Railway Company?


John Flaws Reid: The incorporation of
the Canadian National Railway system does not put out of existence the Canadian Northern Railway. Its stock will be transferred to the Canadian National Railway system when the necessary Order in 'Council has been passed, but the Canadian Northern will still be kept alive. It will be a subsidiary company of the Canadian National Railway system. The directors of the Canadian Northern are the directors of the Canadian National Railway system. Their names have already been given to the House but I will try and recall them to my hon. friend: D. G. Hanna, President, A. J. Mitchell, Vice-President, Mr. Graham Bell, Sir Hormisdas Laporte, Mr. Riley of Winnipeg, Mr. Hobson of Hamilton, Mr. E. R. Wood of Toronto, Mr. Cantley of Nova Scotia, and Mr. Barnhill of New Brunswick.


Georges Parent: Those are the directors
of the Canadian National Railways.


John Flaws Reid: It is the same thing.
They are also the directors of the Canadian Northern. Whoever are the directors of the Canadian National Railway will be the directors of all the subsidiary companies when we bring into force by Order in Council the legislation which has been passed regarding these railways.


John Howard Sinclair: Who appoints these directors?


John Flaws Reid: They are appointed by the shareholders. The Canadian Government appoints them for the people. Whoever the Government names for the directors of the subsidiary companies are appointed at the annual meeting.


Georges Parent: Was there any special
reason why we should say in this legislation the Oandian Northern Railway Company instead of the Canadian National Railways?


John Flaws Reid: These are really extensions to the Canadian Northern Railway, which owns the road running through that particular part of the country. We have in Nova Scotia, for instance, the Halifax and Southwestern Railway, a subsidiary of the Canadian Northern. The stock of that railway is all owned by the Canadian Northern and will be owned by the Canadian National Railway system, but if we wanted to build an extension of fifteen miles to the Halifax and Southwestern railway we would ask for an extension for that particular railway, not for an extension of the Canadian National Railway system.


James Alexander Robb: Inasmuch as on this Bill the minister has (widened out the scope of inquiry to include the Canadian National Railways, may I ask that when he brings down his Estimates he be prepared to make a statement to the House of the amounts paid to each transportation company for the carrying of mails from Halifax, St. John, N. B., Quebec, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg to points west and in the case of all except Halifax also to points east.


John Flaws Reid: If the information can be got out in that form I will give instructions this afternoon to my department and the Post Office Department to have it prepared.


John Howard Sinclair: Do I understand that the minister is building new lines of railway in the West ?


John Flaws Reid: These are not new railways, but extensions to present lines.
Mr. 'SINCLAIR (Guysborough): My hon. friend will remember that there is a railway in Eastern Nova Scotia about which representations have been made to him for many years. At the present time twelve miles of that railway have been completed and are in operation, and the whole question now is in regard to the extension of the railway, in which some 40,000 people are interested. Some families have lived ini that part of the country since the American revolution and are still without railway accommodation. My hon. friend is anxious and rightly so, to provide railway accommodation for new settlers in Western Canada,

but I would also urge upon him that the old settlers, some of whom and their forefathers have been in this country for 150 years are also entitled to some consideration. Does my hon. friend think it is more important to extend railways in Western Canada to give accommodation to new settlers than to extend railways in the part of Nova Scotia to which I have referred to accommodate the large population who hafve occupied that country for so many generations?


John Flaws Reid: I would not say that it is more necessary to provide railway accommodation for new settlers in Western Canada than for the people the hon, member speaks for. I am not as familiar with the situation in that part of the country as my hon. friend, tout if they have been without railway accommodation for so long a time as he says, and it is so urgently required the hon. member should have got it for them during the seventeen years he sat in this House as a supporter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and then he would not be appealing to me to-day. I have had no one pressing me for a railway in that particilar locality. As to these extensions in Western Canada, there is no doubt at all that the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk as well, I suppose, promised branch lines to the people who settled in the western provinces. Furthermore, we have encouraged immigration to this country for many years. We have been advertising the fact that in our western provinces there was a great field for immigrants to come and settle. All Governments, not simply the present Government, tout the previous government, and the Government before that, have encouraged settlers to come to Canada and have promised them railway accommodation if they will settle there. Having promised these people that we would build railways as fast as settlement justified it, I feel that we should carry out that promise. The Canadian Pacific are certainly carrying out that very policy. I feel that when it is shown to us that settlement has progressed to such an extent that it will pay to build a railway to allow these settlers to get out their wheat and other products, the railway accommodation should be provided.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend is right in saying that in Eastern Nova Scotia we should have got this railway built while the late Government was in power, but he has not told the whole story. During those years there was great

opposition on the part of both political parties to undertaking the construction of branch lines anywhere on the Intercolonial railway. During the period that the Conservative party were in power prior to 1896, the attitude of the Government was that they could not afford to begin to build these branch lines. I believe the reason generally given was that if they commenced to do so they would be swamped with applications. There was therefore no branch line policy adopted by either party up to the year 1910. In 1910 when a resolution was brought forward by my late hon. friend from the county of Westmorland, Mr. Emerson, the Government of that day accepted it and adopted the policy of building branch lines for the-first time. Immediately after that, at the very next session of Parliament, provision was made for those branch lines I refer to. It was acknowledged on all sides that the Guysborough branch should be the first to be built. A million dollars was voted in 1911, immediately after Die decision had been arrived at by Parliament to begin the construction of branch lines on the Intercolonial. A contract was then made tj build that line. Tenders were called for, surveys were made and two branch lines were projected, one in the county of Halifax and one in the counties of Guysborough and Pictou. Another was projected in the island of Cape Breton, of which my hon. friend who sits near me (Mr. McKenzie) has often spoken. Advertisements were published and tenders were received, and a million dollars was provided by Parliament for the building of each of these branch lines. Then, when the business was at that stage, there was a change of government. The county of Halifax was represented by the .Prime Minister and one of his colleagues, not now in this House, and the county of Guysborough by your humble servant. The contracts were exactly similar, a million dollars having been voted for each. They were executed at the same time and everything was done before the change of Government took place. Thereafter, what happened? The Government repudiated the contract for the building of the branch line into the county of Guysborough but continued the contract 'or the railway into the country represented by the Prime Minister. It is not creditable to the Government that they should have treated one county differently from another simply because the county of Guysborough happened to be represented by a member of the Opposition. That is what happened, however, and I had hoped that my hon. friend would have redeemed the

record and wiped out the reproach of the Government. He has not done so. I have on various occasions obtained hopeful promises from my hon. friend that he would reconsider this matter. I quite understand that it is difficult at the present time to get money to build railways anywhere, but if railways are to be built I submit that there is no part of Canada where the need is so urgent as in that locality. There are great natural resources to he developed there; there are great fishing, lumber and mining industries, and that part of the country has been kept back all these years because this railway has not been built. There is no other way of obtaining railway facilities for this locality except as a branch of the Government railways, because it is _ not possible as a commercial enterprise to build short branch lines such as this. I submit that my hon. friend should now deal with this question. I would not press it at the present time were it not for the fact that he is building railways in other parts of Canada; and when he undertakes to construct railways in Western Canada for new settlers who have been in the country only a short time, and denies the same right to people who have been here for generations, I think it is eminently unfair and the Government cannot defend such a policy. I contend that they cannot fairly build new railways in Western Canada if they refuse to do the same thing for Eastern Canada.


Mr. COWAN:: I agree with the proposal to make these three extensions provided for in this Bill. The hon. member (Mr. Sinclair) speaks about new localities that are now being served by these railways. The locality that is being provided for by No. 3 has been longer settled than the district in Nova Scotia to which my hon. friend referred. Thirty-five years ago Willow Bunch and Wood Mountain districts were among the oldest settlements in the country. The settlers have lived there for years and years and have to cart their produce thirty, forty and fifty miles to the nearest centre. There is another thing that makes the third line necessary. It runs within five or six miles of the international boundary line and the settlers there are largely American in sentiment and during the past number of years have been taking all their produce across to the United States. They have been taking all their wheat and other things and selling it there and doing all their purchasing on the American side. As I said in the Railway Committee the other day, so far as these two tiers of townships along the
Montana boundary line are concerned they might as well be in the United States, for they are not a part of Canada as regards their trade. We can only expect that condition to continue so long as they are nearer the American railway than the Canadian, and the only way in which we can make these two townships a real part of Canada is by giving them the railway facilities they so much need. I trust therefore that not only will these railways be built as quickly as possible, but that it will be a settled policy that the line shall be continued further west from year to year until the whole of the townships abutting Montana are served by the Canadian railways and brought into touch with Canadian centres. There is one thing that has puzzled me and I should like the minister to make a statement on the point. Is it his intention, or does he promise, that these three branches will not only be graded but will be steeled this year? I ask this question because last year we provided for a branch line further east running from Peebles to Lampman for a distance of some twenty miles and we were hoping that it would be built this year because it taps a magnificent coal mine which we want to reach. Although the Government has made all provision necessary in the way of charter, money, etc., I find by a letter that I received the other day from the manager of the Canadian National Railways that they will not be able to complete it this year because they cannot get the steel. How can they get steel for these three branches and not for a branch already authorized? I contend that the line already started should be finished and steeled before further extensions are made, because the one already authorized is a very important one to the people of the city of Regina and to thousands of people who want to get this coal. A company with $500,000 capital is now operating and it is completely stuck because it is eight miles away from a railway. This branch has been promised and these people are waiting for it. I would like to know if the steel is going to be provided for this road this year?


John Flaws Reid: In reference to the question of doing grading work and providing steel for these three branch lines, and also why we did not put the steel on this Willow Bunch-Wood Mountain, line last year. I may say that in the first of the year the board of directors lay down their construction policy for the year. That was done last year and it was decided that 350 miles was

the outside limit that could be constructed. Parliament voted the money necessary to do the work on 350 miles. But there is no use of saying that we can guarantee to build 350 miles. If we cannot get the rails, ties and labour we cannot do the work. We were not able to do the 350 miles because we could not get the labour or the rails. This year we have laid down a construction policy of about 350 miles. The Canadian Pacific have also laid down a construction policy of 350 miles. Early in the year they believed they could do that amount of work and we believed we could do the same. But there is a shortage of labour and of rails. Every effort is being made by the Government and the Canadian Pacific to get the labour necessary to complete the 350 miles. If we can get the rails we will complete all we decided to do last year. That will have the preference in so far as the rails are concerned. Then we will follow that up with 350 miles that we have decided to go ahead with this year if we can get the rails and labour. Part of this mileage is included in the three lines I am now asking charters for. The charters are for about fifty miles each or 150 miles in all. We do not intend to grade or lay the rails on the 150 miles this year but probably 15 or 20 miles of each of these three lines is all we can expect to do this year. Contracts for grading will be let and tenders are now waiting for these charters to be put through. If we can get the rails and the men, which we are trying to arrange for now, we will have the steel laid and the grading done on 15 or 20 miles of each of these branch lines.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the Minister tell us what is the population of the district traversed by these railways?


John Flaws Reid: Parties from these
localities stated what the population was in the Railway Committee the other day. They said that there were large settlements in each district. In the Prince Albert district there is a population of 40,000. A large population has been settled there for some time and( there has been a very largely signed petition from all the people in the locality. We have also had deputations to the Government and the board of management not only this year but lost year urging the -construction of these roads.


Mr. CAHILL:: I was in the Railway Committee the other day and I did not hear any one say what the population was in the

territories that these railways will traverse. vVhen the hon. member at the back of the Minister suggests to him that there are
40,000	people, it shows a woeful lack of accurate information because there are not more than 40,000 people in the whole district of Prince Albert which is already served by two large railways. The country is well served to the -South and the only question it as to the North. That is an indication of the kind of information we are getting here in regard to the railway situation. I want to bring to the attention of the Government what appears to be the most important matter in connection with the whole question. That is:	who recommends the construction of these railways? Is it recommended by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways? If so, what promises have been made to the Government as to the possibility of earning a revenue on these extensions? What promises have been made to the Government as to their ability to pay the interest on this investment? Before we get too deep into this proposition I would like to remind the Minister of Railways that the Minister of Finance on the ISth day of May informed the House that he had practically written off $140,000,000 of advances to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. What were the advances for? For the construction of railways, for the building of branch lines and such work, I presume, because it is stated that the whole amount is represented by assistance furnished by this Government to the Canadian Northern. Where do we get to by this policy? What is the policy? We are at both ends of this question. We are representing the people who owned the Canadian Northern railway. Our directors on the one hand come to us and say: "We want to build certain branch lines". We, on the other hand, represent the people who must pay and we are entitled to ask the directors, or the Government:	"What
do you expect to accomplish by building these branch lines?" This is no longer a philanthropic proposition. We are not in a position to continuously hand out money to these people. What is the policy of this railway, company? What is the' policy of the Government in regard to the railway question? Are we going to build where the greatest pressure is brought to bear? Are we going to build along the boundary line because somebody is selling his wheat and buying his sugar in the United States, or because somebody is trading with the United

States? We are trading with every country in the world. Surely that is no excuse for building a railway. We are not going to build railways to stop people from trading with the United States. We want to know whither we are heading? AVe cannot go on indefinitely spending money with one hand and having the Minister of Finance coming down and writing off the investment with the other. The people of the whole of Canada are paying for these railways. Each district throughout Canada will want its pro rata share of its construction of railways. It is all very well for the Minister to say that these railways are going to earn interest but the man who is in a position to give us an opinion says that this investment is a bad asset and that these railways are not in a position to earn interest. He writes it off, dismisses it and no longer counts it as an asset. How much longer are we going to continue this policy? Have you determined on what ground you are building these western lines? Is it on the ground that pressure is being brought to bear for their construction. AVhat kind of pressure is it-political or otherwise? Is it on the ground that this section of country will develop traffic that will earn money tfor the railway company or is the motive purely political? This committee is entitled to know where we are heading for and what we are driving at in regard to this 360 or more miles of railway that the Minister talks so freely about building this year. We should understand where we are heading for. The minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet should sit down and come to some conclusion about this railway policy. They should adopt a railway policy. They should have a real railway policy before they come and ask for charters to build more railways when they have absolutely no idea as to where the money to pay for those railways is coming from other than it is coming out of the pockets of the already heavily burdened taxpayers of Canada. In the absence of exact information this is not a good, sound, proposition. The Government should ask themselves these questions: Is it necessary toi build these roads? It may be necessary to open up the territory in question, but would some private railway company build the lines required to serve that territory? Is that territory so valuable that if the Government lines were extended into it the result would be to yield such dividends as would help to reduce the existing deficit? We have not had any information with
respect to, these lines in the railway committee, that is any dependable figures with respect to the territory proposed to be served and the population which it contains. AVhen these charters came up in the railway committee, for example, no member, not even the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) could give a rough estimate of the number of people that wolld be advantaged by the line running north of the city of that name. Neither did any person attempt to give an estimate of the population in the \A7illow Buttes district, or in the district being served by the line running northwest from Radisson. It is not only that we are asked to grant these charters. As a matter of fact we have to. find the money with which to build the railways in question. Can it be that the Government <are so callous, and so used to doing things that no person with a conscience would attempt to do, that they propose to go ahead without furnishing the detailed information that is necessary? 1 can tell them that the time will come when they will be answerable to the people; their mandate has long since expired. They will soon have to account for their deeds and will have to make fitting explanation to the people. I repeat the Government of this country should have a policy regarding the railway situation. I venture to say that not a man in this committee has asked what the expenditure per mile is going to be in connection with these branch railways. I asked that question in the railway committee, but I only received an evasive reply. I was told the cost might be $30,000, or $35,000, and even $45,000. The Government really have no correct conception of what the construction of these lines is going to cost, or where they are going to get the necessary money to build them-dn fact they do not know where they are heading for.


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member is
afraid there is some political move behind the construction of these railways, but he need not he worried to the extent of one particle in that regard. The Government have a policy, and that policy has been explained not only in this House but in the , railway committee as well. The hon. member wants to know whether these lines will pay if they are built. Let me tell him that the Government do not intend to build one mile of railway until it has been shown aud demonstrated to them that it will pay. The policy of constructing railways that will parallel1 other lines, or en-

croach upon the territory which the existing lines already serve while it has been one that has been followed by all Governments ever since Confederation has been discontinued so far as the present Government is concerned. They will only build such lines, or agree to their extension, when it has been shown that they will pay. Now let me demonstrate to the hon. member that so far as the Canadian Northern railway is concerned there would not- be any possible chance of its paying in the West unless it were furnished with these branch lines.


Frank S. Cahill: Which branch lines?


John Flaws Reid: All the branch lines
in connection with the Canadian Northern railway, feeders to the main line. In the case' of these particular fifteen miles of line, the products of the territory through which they will pass will be such as to well pay the main line for their carriage. Let me say to the hon. member that in the three western provinces not only the main lines but the branch lines of the Canadian Northern already in existence, have always paid. They paid last year, they will pay this year, and they will continue to pay. The loss on the operation of the Canadian Northern was owing to the several governments concerned allowing them to build a railway westward from Port Arthur where there were no feeders; but the lines to which I have alluded have always paid and will continue to pay. The hon. member was present in the railway committee, and heard the discussion there. He will therefore agree with me that the policy determined upon of building these branch lines is fair, just and right, and that when the lines are constructed they will greatly add to the success and profit of the main systems of which they will be feeders.


Frank S. Cahill: The Minister has stated
that the Canadian Northern railways in the West, both main line and branch, have always paid?


John Flaws Reid: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: Then I presume he will
be able to substantiate that statement when the railway estimates are up for consideration.


Walter Davy Cowan: If the hon. member is not willing to accept the statement of the Minister of Railways, perhaps he will accept the statement of the Hon. Charles Dunning, Liberal minister, in the province of Saskatchewan. That province has guaranteed

millions of dollars-I do not know how many million-for the construction of branch lines in connection with the different railways of that province, and Mr. Dunning stated, within the last year that he would not be at all sorry if he had to take over all those branch lines that had been so guaranteed because every one was a paying investment. The authority of a Liberal minister in a Liberal Government ought to be sufficient authority for the Liberal member of Pontiac.
Mr. CAHILL. That fact would go a long way to recommend them, but it is not a question of somebody thinking or saying so. The facts should be available, and all I want is that the facts- be produced before the committee showing the earnings of the main line throughout the western country and of the extensions that have been built.


Mr. CURRIE:: There is one feature in
connection with this matter which the minister has brought up, and it is this: Reference has been made to the directorate of the Canadian Northern Railway. Now as far as this railway is concerned we find that every year we are going into the hole about 550,000,000 and that all our other railway securities-


John Flaws Reid: 
John Allister Currie: No. I am saying that the Government railways are going into the hole about $50,000,000. I want to point out to the minister something very serious that the people of this country have taken into their consideration in connection with this matter. In the United States, in the case of every great railway, the executive officers and directors -are composed of railway operators, men who understand their business. The presidents, vice-presidents, and directors are all men who are experts in their line of business. But this Government railway is managed by a lot of men that I consider are nothing but political profiteers. They are merchants and brokers, and men who sell coal to the Government, and I think the time has come when that has got to stop. Further, I have got to say this-and I am speaking, perhaps, on behalf of the East rather than of the West-I think the time has come when this quarrel between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Government railways should end. Because a

few of the officials of our Government system and the minister have a quarrel with the Canadian Pacific Railway, that is no Teason why the people should have to make up a deficit of $50,000,000 a year. The people are demanding that the minister shall put our Government railways on a paying basis within a few months' time. And that is a very easy thing to do. It is only a question of increasing the rates. Why should we have to continue paying annual deficits of $50,000,000 unless the Government want to make public ownership of railways unpopular? I am speaking on behalf of public ownership. I think we cannot avoid it, and the only proper course to pursue is to see that our national railways are made to pay. Any business man inside *of twenty-four hours could arrange a tariff by which those railways could be put on a profitable basis, and we would not be confronted every year with these deficits. It is a black mark against the financial reputation otf this country that those deficits should occur year after year, and it influences other nations against us in so far as our credit is concerned.
With regard to the building of branch lines in the West, that is a question which the minister has fully considered. He has explained, and it is no doubt true, that the branch lines of cur national system in the West are paying. But so far as the East is concerned any further building of branch lines would to a large extent be merely a needless duplication. I am sorry that the hon. gentleman who referred to a certain branch line in Nova Scotia is not in hiis seat.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is.


John Allister Currie: Oh, yes, I see him now.
I have a distinct recollection of a charter being granted for that railway in 1908, when a carload otf Wheelbarrows and shovels was taken up there on the eve of the election just so that he and his friends could carry the riding; and the same thing occuired in 1911. He and his colleague were two of the strongest men in this House from Nova Scotia, and if they had had any real intention of building that railway they could have done so between 1908 and 1911. But, Mr. Chairman, that charter was obtained purely for political purposes, and for that reason I think the Minister of Railways before going ahead with any such branch line would be well advised to take into consideration the local conditions. Of course, if he wanted to carry the riding 215
against the hon. gentleman at the next election he might go down there and have a carload of shovels and wheelbarrows dumped on the location on the eve otf the election.


Thomas Vien: That would not be sufficient.


John Allister Currie: Then the story might be
repeated that he would not come back. But that branch line has been purely a political venture, and I think it is a great waste of time to deal with it here.
This question of seeing that our national railways pay for themselves is a very vital question, and the only way to make them pay is to increase the freight rates. So far as I have heard there is but one argument advanced against such an increase:	That
the Canadian Pacific railway would benefit. Well, there are methods by which that could be prevented. But even if the Canadian Pacific railway did make some money out of an increase in freight rates, what about it? The Canadian Pacific railway is one of our foremost institutions, its credit and standing are international, and at the present moment its securities are lower than they have ever been for the last fifteen years. That does not speak well for this country in our period of reorganization when we need more population and more capital. But the tide of immigration has entirely stopped, and although the statistics for the last few months are not yet available, I think I am safe in saying that we have been losing rather than gaining population If we are going to make this country attractive to immigrants we must reduce taxation, and we cannot do that if every year the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) asks us to make good a $50,000,000 deficit on the operation of our national railways. That condition of affairs prejudices us in the eyes of the world, and naturally it is said: Oh, Canada is a poor country. Look at its Government railways comprising over 20,000 miles, they are in a hole every year to the extent of $40,000,000 or $50,000,000. The people of this country are now demanding that the Minister of Railways of this or any other Government shall see to it that the deficits on the operation of our national railway system are changed into surpluses. I have no quarrel with the minister about building branch lines. No doubt he has figures to show whether or not those branch lines will pay. I am speaking of the whole system. There must be a change in management, new men must be put in charge and held strictly responsible for the profit-



able and efficient operation of the system. Any business man would demand that the system be operated so as to show a surplus rather than a deficit. The Government has it in his own hands to make public ownership of railways a success, for it can control freight rates, and it is absolutely contrary to public policy that we should continue to operate our national railways at rates which entail steady and increasing losses. Those who use our railways for the shipment of thousands of tons of freight should not ask our working men and factory girls to make up that deficit; they should be prepared to meet it by paying freight rates which will not only cover the cost of operation but leave a profit for the benefit of the Treasury.
I think the Minister of Railways should be ready at- an early date to assure this Chamber that he is putting his house in order, and that the rates are to Ibe immediately increased to a paying basis. There is no quarrel with the Canadian Pacific railway, there is not quarrel with public ownership, which will justify these continued deficits, and the time has come when the Parliament of Canada, irrespective of political affiliations, should put its foot firmly down and say:	We must have an
end of these deficits, and there must be a new form of management to bring that about.


John Flaws Reid: Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the hon. member proceeds, I must remind the-committee that the principle of this Bill was adopted on the second reading, yet hon. members have been indulging in a second reading debate. Hon. gentlemen have been going even further and discussing the Estimate of the Department of Railways and Canals. The rule is quite clear: that discussion in committee must be relevant to the clause under consideration; and unless the committee gives its unanimous consent that this discussion may continue, I must ask hon. members to confine themselves to the subject matter of each clause as it is reached. Is it the unanimous consent of the committee that this general discussion be continued?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood that the
policy of the Government in regard to building branch lines in other places than the West was open for discussion. I would not like to follow the trend of the argument

opened up by the minister himself, and followed by other speakers-


Georges Henri Boivin: It is always very regrettable to be obliged to call any one hon. member to order after other hon. members have been allowed to enter upon a general discussion, but I have just given my ruling, and before giving that ruling I asked for the unanimous consent of the committee, which consent was refused. I can do nothing now but hold hon. members strictly to a discussion of the branch lines -mentioned in this Bill.


John Flaws Reid: Mr. Chairman-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was going to observe-


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Reid has the floor.


John Flaws Reid: Mr. Chairman,
I could not quite hear your ruling. Do I understand that I have to confine my remarks to these particular branch lines?


Georges Henri Boivin: ' To the branch lines mentioned in the present Bill.


John Flaws Reid: I can speak for the branch lines in the northern part of the three prairie provinces. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) stated that the branch lines of our national system in the West were a paying proposition; in that statement he is absolutely correct. It is a fact that about a month ago the grain crop of last year was not moved out of Northern Saskatchewan on lines tributatry to the Canadian National system, and if our National railways are to be made to pay they must be fed by branch lines in the -most productive part of the Dominion, and that is the northern part of the prairie provinces. I do not know about conditions in the East, and therefore I shall confine my remarks to that part of the West with which I am familiar. I have this information from a railway official, that if we have this year a normal grain crop in Western Canada we will have the biggest grain blockage that we have ever experienced in that country.
It is time for the Minister of Railways to get the necessary rolling stock and have the road beds put in first class condition, so that when the crop goes on the market our railway system, branch lines as well as main lines, will be able to keep the traffic moving. If this is not done, there is no use in our building branch lines. I am prepared to give the Government and the Minister of Railways my hearty support in the construction of branch lines on the Canadian National Railway system in Western Canada

wherever they are needed. Branch lines must be constructed if we are to reach the outlying settlements and give those who settle in our country a chance to get their produce to the market.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Oh no, we are not ready for the question. Hon. members opposite make their speeches, and when it comes to somebody else's turn they say: ''Question". Just as much time will be saved and just as much progress will be made if hon. gentlemen show some degree of fairness and if the minister lets everybody have his say. II do not propose at this time of my life to be turned off as easily as hon. gentlemen may think when I have some remarks to make.	-


John Flaws Reid: I take issue with the
hon. member. I have no objection if he takes a week on this Bill. But he knows that the Estimates must come up and that on those Estimates the general railway policy may be discussed. If, however, he wishes to take up the time of the committee in discussing a matter which is really not before us, I am willing that he do so; hon. members may take up as much time as they like in a discussion of the whole railway policy.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister spoke on this Bill; the member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) spoke on it, as did the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill); the member for Regina (Mr. Cowan); the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). All made long speeches along lines of a general character. Now, when the member for North Cape Breton and Victoria wants to speak, it is alleged that he is improperly taking up the time of the committee. That is the ruling of the minister.


Mr.  J. D. RETD@: No, it is not the ruling of the minister.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. That was not
the ruling of the minister; it was the ruling of the Chairman. The hon. member who was called to order was not the member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie), but the member for Mackenzie (M. J. F. Reid), who had the floor when the ruling was given. I am sorry that the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria should be deprived of the opportunity of making his speech, and once more I am willing to ask for the unanimous eon-215J
sent of the committee that he be allowed to make that speech. But if the Chairman remained seated and allowed each member of the committee to make the same kind of speech as that made by each of the hon. members mentioned a moment ago by the member for North Cape Breton and Victoria, the Chairman would certainly not be doing his duty.
Some hon.-MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not finding fault with the ruling. There was a time in my life when I presided in a court, and if a lawyer tried to give me law that was bad I would tell him so at once; I would not let him waste a whole day in giving 5 p.m. bad law. With all due deference, I submit that when we begin to drift from the proper line, the thing to do is to stop it at .once, and not give an advantage to half a dozen members to make their speeches before shutting another member off. I stand by the ruling, but 1 submit that the ruling should be made whenever the digression occurs. 'I have no desire to depart from the rules, but I think there is necessity for information in connection with this Bill. The minister has said that no action was taken until there was assurance that the building of these extensions would be a business proposition. What assurance has the Government to that effect? What survey has: been made? Is the minister in possession of a report from Mr. Hanna? Is there a report from the (Chief Engineer giving the assurance that this is a business proposition and that there will be no loss to the people if they put their money into this new venture?


John Flaws Reid: Before the board decided to ask for these charters they had their officials go over the territory with a view to seeing whether these lines should- be built. Mr. M. H. MacLeod, assistant to Mr. Hanna,-in fact, the gentleman who laid out the whole of the Canadian Northern lines in Western Canada-is in charge of extensions and the construction of lines in that part of the country. Hon. members who have been in the West will agree that the Canadian National or Canadian Northern lines in the West are well located and are all on a paying basis. Now, Mr. MadLeod, with his staff, examined this territory and recommended, in his report to the management, that these extensions be made. Mr. MacLeod and his engineering staff came to Ottawa and I went over the whole matter with them. Subsequently a

sub-committee of the Cabinet, composed of Sir Henry Drayton, Mr. Calder and myself, went to Toronto and discussed the extensions proposed to be made during the coming year. Only after we spent two days in Toronto with Mr. Hanna, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. MacLeod, Mr. Hungerford and other officials did we come to the conclusion that the extensions now proposed were not only necessary and in the public interest,	but	should	be proceededwith at	the	earliest	possible day.
I only mention this to show that we are not going on with this work simply because we have received a letter or something of that kind from the railway officials. Everything that could be done by the Government to ascertain the facts in connection with these extensions was done. It was shown that settlement in these districts was ahead of the railways and that the extensions should be built. As to the roads being profitable, we have the statement of the officials. There is no doubt about their being profitable. They will run intoi a splendid section of the country, where the settlers will furnish a sufficient quantity of traffic in farm products to make them pay. My candid opinion is that extensions such as this, which produce more traffic for our main lines and promote settlement, will help reduce the deficits on the Canadian National railways. We have been informed by the officials that owing to the high cost of rails and labour the roads will cost from $30,000 to $35,000 a mile. Of course, we shall have more traffic the second year than the first, because settlement will proceed much more rapidly when the railway accommodation is provided.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister mean to say that he has no written report at all from some responsible officer with regard to these extensions?


John Flaws Reid: We have a statement from the president, after the discussions we had. There is an official report as to the necessity of the extensions we are asking for and the conditions of the country through which they will run. I do not want the committee to think I am trying to rush this Bill through in an unreasonable manner. There will be another opportunity to discuss these extensions when the Estimates are up, and if the committee want a report on each extension I will have the reports brought down. I am trying to get this legislation through because I think, and the Government thinks, that these extensions are absolutely necessary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This country is divided into two camps as far as public ownership is concerned. On the one side we have the people of this country and the Government, and on the other the Canadian Pacific. Now we, the representatives of the people, sitting here, have the same responsibilities as the directors and managers of the Canadian Pacific would have if they were projecting new lines, and I venture to tell my hon. friend that the president and the executive of the Canadian Pacific would not plunge into the building of a road into practically uninhabited sections of the West without a report from a responsible engineer as to the feasibility of building the road, and a report from the traffic manager as to the prospects of the road paying. All that is done in this case is that the Minister of Railways goes on a little excursion to Toronto and while there he has the pleasure of sitting down and smoking a cigar with Mr. Hanna and Mr. MacLeod


John Flaws Reid: I do not smoke.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He takes his whiskey while they smoke.


John Flaws Reid: There is prohibition in Ontario.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have no report, no plan, no estimate. We are not told whether bridges will have to be built to cross [DOT]streams, whether there are any rock cuttings to be made, or anything as to the nature of the road. All we have is this solemn gathering of two or three friends discussing matters generally and reaching the conclusion that it would be a nice thing to extend lines in certain parts of the country. Then the minister comes home and calls this easy bunch of members around him and asks them to give him any quantity of money to build this road. I submit to the minister and to this House that that is not the way to do business. Before one dollar is voted for this proposition and before a charter is granted we should ascertain the facts in a business-like way. I am not talking from an opposition standpoint or with any idea of blocking this project. I am only asking that the proper line of business be-followed, as I understand it, and which hon. gentlemen opposite who are business men would follow if they were investing their own money. We are the trustees of the money of the people. The people are losing by the National railways something like $49,000,000 or $50,000,000 a year, and now we are telling the people of

this country that notwithstanding the fact that we, the trustees of their money, lost something like $50,000,000 on the railways last year, we .are going to continue to spend money on the railways without consulting them, and with no hope of doing better in the future than in the past. If that is the way we are going to wield our power under the policy of Government ownership, the enemies of public ownership and those who criticise it, of whom I am one, will have a splendid opportunity of finding themselves justified by the facts. Has the minister any working profile of these extensions showing the number of bridges and cuttings and so forth, and also an estimate of the probable expenditure involved? Has an Order in Council been passed approving the location of the different lines? All this information would be given if it was any one but ourselves who was building these roads. We are simply dealing with ourselves unde' the name of this company. It is somewhat of a fallacious position to be in. We are calling ourselves the Canadian Northern Railway, whereas it is ourselves who are building these roads. We have all the powers under the Railway Act to enable us to build a railway, and in view of that Act on the statute books it is anomalous that we should be here asking power of ourselves to build our own road, and talking of the road as if it was .anybody else's but our own. I think I have made myself perfectly clear, and I am sure my argument must appeal to every business man in this House. I think the committee should be given the information I have asked for I am not a business man myself; 'I am a mere lawyer, but whatever may be said of lawyers, after they have been a long time in practice they learn something about business. I have learned business ideas. I think it is only plain common sense that we should be given the information I have asked for before we are asked to launch upon this very doubtful enterprise.


Mr. KNOX:: I think if my hon. friend took a trip out West and saw conditions for himself he would change his mind as to the necessity of building these roads. I wish to say a word in regard to subclause (a), as the line mentioned therein is in the constituency I represent. The country lying to the north of Prince Albert is thickly settled for the reason that when settlers went in there the odd number homesteads were open for entry the .same as the even numbers, which was very different from what it had been in former years. We therefore have more
settlers to the square mile there than in the greater part of the West. For some twenty-five or thirty miles this thick settlement continues north of Prince Albert, and the settlers have been in that country for a good many years, some for a very long period. They have been looking forward to railway facilities but up to the present time they have not been able to secure anything. Beyond that, twenty-five or thirty miles, you still find men growing wheat and raising cattle, and their produce has to be transported in many instances thirty and even forty miles. At Prince Albert we have just recently had provincial stock yards opened and they are promising to be very successful, and there is a large abattoir operating at the same point. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) mentioned the difficulty of getting wheat out of the northern district last year, and I can vouch for what he says in that respect. I would point out that on general principles it is necessary to build these branch lines, because if you want to make the railroad pay it is essential to open up just such a district as this line will go into. I therefore most heartily endorse the principle laid down here.


James Alexander Robb: It might be interesting to the committee to know who owns the land along this particular section. In am not particularly interested in regard to what is owned by settlers who have located, but it would be interesting to know what companies own big tracts of this country in which the railway is to operate, and how much the Crown owns.


John Flaws Reid: I will endeavour to have that information when my Estimates are under consideration. I believe that that particular section from Prince Albert north was Government land that has been settled by soldiers. There is a large settlement of returned soldiers in that particular locality. The other districts, I understand, are nearly all settled by private settlers. However, I will get the information which my hon. friend desires. I have not heard of any large company owning any land there. So far as I am aware it is owned by private settlers interested in the locality.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister will have to revise his figures in regard to the population. I may remind him that the last census taken in Saskatchewan only four years ago showed that there were only 42,000 people in the whole district, and the population of the southern

part of Prince Albert district must be subtracted from that number in order to give the true population of the northern part of the country. I think that -the minister must be misinformed in regard to the number of people who will be served by the new branches in that territory, and if he could get the exact information for us it might be useful. I believe he could obtain that information because a census was taken there a few years ago.


John Flaws Reid: An hon. member asked me if I knew what the population was and I replied that I could not make any authoritative statement myself, but I thought it had been mentioned in the committee. I think that an hon. member sitting behind me said it was 40,000. If I remember rightly it was the hon. member who lives in Prince Albert that made that statement. This railway, of course, would not. serve the whole of that 40,000, but it would serve a large proportion of them. I did not make the statement on my own responsibility.


Andrew Knox: It was I who said that the population of the constituency was forty thousand. It may be considerably more dhan that at the present time. As to this particular district, it would be difficult to estimate what the difference is, because the settlers have been going there continuously for some years, and since the establishment of the Soldiers' Settlement Board there has been a large influx into the northern part of this district. The soldiers have settled very extensively there, and it would be difficult to state the exact population.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the clause carry?


Mr.   GAHHJL@: What clause are we on Mr. Chairman ?


Georges Henri Boivin: We are discussing section 2.


Frank S. Cahill: I understood we were on clause 1.


Georges Henri Boivin: We have passed clause 1. We are now on clause 2.


Frank S. Cahill: Did you read.1 that clause Mr. Chairman?


Georges Henri Boivin: Only the marginal
note was read.


Frank S. Cahill: I asked the question because an amendment was made in the Committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: The clause was amended, Shall clause 2 carry?
[Mr. Sinclair. 1


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are no distances given here in any one of the sections. Hon. gentlemen who come from the West think, Mr. Chairman, that I am opposed to railways in that part of the 'Country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear. hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
John Flaws Reid: The Bill does not mention the mileage. It says, in (A):
A line from a point at or near Prince Albert thence northerly to a point at or near township fifty-seven range twenty-five, west of the second meridian.
It defines the two points between which it is to run. On the profile that we had in the railway committee the distance between these two points was shown to be in the neighbourhood of 50 miles. The next one is shown to be about 40 miles in length. It runs from a point on the main line of the Canadian National railways between the crossing of the North Saskatchewan river and Radisson; thence in a general northerly and northwesterly direction to a point on the company's authorized line at or near Meeting lake. That does not say the exact mileage but it gives the two points between which we are going to construct. It is shown on the plan as being about 40 miles. With regard to the Maryfield branch, 50 miles is shown to be the outside limit. It is possible that the mileage could have been mentioned in the Bill but the draftsman put it in that way.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member and his supporters voted for the proposition that the coal used for the Canadian railways carrying freight shall be taken out on the basis of nine hours pay for eight hours'

work. Is it the intention to build these railways on the same basis?


John Flaws Reid: The railways will be
built under contract. Tenders will be called, and the contractor will have to arrange with those whom he may employ to construct the railways. I cannot say whether he will employ them for nine hours or ten hours.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are evidently dealing with Mackenzie and Mann because they are synonymous with the Canadian Northern and being synonymous with the Canadian Northern they are going to build this road. Our experience is that Mackenzie and Mann, as railway operators, always lost money and that to make up the vacum in their purses they used to come to the Government of Canada. While they always lost money as operators they always made money as contractors. Mackenzie and Mann made themselves millionaires by building roads for themselves. That ridiculous anomaly has existed in this country for the last twenty-five or forty years. I would like to ask if Mackenzie and Mann are going to be permitted to make a contract with the Mackenzie and Mann Construction Company for the building of these roads in order that they may make millions for themselves and if when they come to run the roads they will run into the treasury of this country.


John Flaws Reid: I can hardly think that my hon. friend is fair in the manner in which he puts the matter. He states that this road is really the property of Mackenzie and Mann. It is now the road of the people of Canada.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why do you use their names?


John Flaws Reid: I explained a minute ago
that any construction that has to be done for subsidiary companies must be done under the name of the parent company. But even if we continue the name the hon. member must admit that this is government property and not the property of Mackenzie and Mann. The management call for tenders for each particular piece of road that is to be built and a number of people tender. The lowest tender is accepted in every case. I do not think that there is any fairer way of doing it or that it could be done in any other way. It is not Mackenzie and Mann at all. The hon. gentleman states that Mackenzie and Mann made millions out of the Canadian Northern. I hardly agree with him. I do not think that Mackenzie and Mann are the millionaires the hon. gentleman states them to be. However that has nothing to do with the matter; the board of management call for tenders, the lowest tenderer will be given the contract and it will be carried out under the supervision of the railway employees who are in no way connected with Mackenzie and Mann.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Last year we put
through a Bill consolidating all the Government railways to which the Bill was attached a schedule containing the names of twenty or thirty different roads that were to be built afterwards.


An hon. MEMBER:: Forty.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Some one says forty; it was a large number anyway. Will the minister tell us how many of these different branches have been built since and if any of the branches mentioned m this Bill are identical with any of those mentioned in the schedule to the Bill which was passed a session or two ago.


John Flaws Reid: Yes; these charters are parts of the subsidiary companies. In Saskatchewan there was the Canadian Northern Saskatchewan Railway Company and in Alberta the Canadian Northern Alberta, both subsidiary to the Canadian Northern railway. These are extensions of the lines that were built under those charters. They will be a part of the several hundred miles of railway already built. The Canadian Northern Railway system has about 9,000 miles of which there, are probably 1,090 miles in Eastern Canada and in British Columbia and about 7,000 in the western provinces. This in each case adds about fifty miles to the lines that were mentioned in the schedule to the Bill which was passed by Parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: Those who are familiar with the geography of the country will have no difficulty in forming an impression cf the extent of the obligation we are assuming, but after all there are only a few who are so blessed as to have that knowledge. It would be a convenience to have some indication of the mileage expressed in this Bill. My recollection is that in all our railway Bills the mileage is mentioned. There may be cases in which you cannot be precise. My recollection is that in all our railway appropriations we would indicate the mileage at so many miles, more or less. That is convenient to put in your Bill. Here you do not say whether you are going to build a thousand miles or twenty. I suggest

that until the minister has had a careful calculation made he would be proceeding on a safe basis to indicate the probable mileage of the road in order to help anybody who reads the Bill on a future occasion.


John Flaws Reid: It was stated in the committee by me, as well as by the railway officials, in each case, that the distance would not exceed fifty miles. I have no objection, if the committee wishes it, to carrying out the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and adding in each clause, "Not exceeding fifty miles".


William Stevens Fielding: I would not put in the words, "not exceeding", because the points are designated, but I would say so many miles more or less. I do not want to restrict my hon. friend at all, but if somebody- who is not familiar with the country-reads the Bill in future he ought to be given some idea as to the mileage in each case.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I point out
another emendation to this legislation which would help the ordinary reader in time to come? The Bill is entitled, "An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways", and it is stated that it may be referred to as "The Canadian National Railways Act 1920". Then the Bill proceeds to refer to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. The sooner the minister, who is responsible for the railway administration and policy of this country, will put the different roads which form part of the National Railways System into the possession of the National Railway Company and call them by their proper' names, just so soon will he confer a real benefit on any one who wants to study our railway situation now and in the future. It is not really a question of names, it is a question of being able to understand the situation thoroughly; and this habit of calling systems of railway, or branch lines of railway, which properly belong to the National system, by their former names breeds confusion, and makes it less possible to understand the railway situation which exists at the present time.


John Flaws Reid: If I understand the hon. member he wishes to eliminate the name, "Canadian Northern Railway" and adopt the title of "Canadian National Railway"?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I understood from the minister at an earlier part of the discussion that this part of the system now referred to has not yet been vested in the Canadian National system, and that was the reason why the name, "Canadian National Rail-
	j .	,
way", was not employed. If this system itself now falls under our National system I see no reason why the name should not be changed by the committee now.


John Flaws Reid: I explained a few
minutes ago that in the case of the Canadian Northern or of these extensions of a subsidiary company even when the Canadian Northern stock is transferred to the Canadian National Company those extensions Rave to be asked for in the name of the Canadian Northern, or the subsidiary company. I have been in the railway committee for a good many years, and during that time-and even as late as the present session-whenever the Canadian Railway Company applied for an extension of its charter they did so in the name of the subsidiary company, although they would do away with that plan if they could. I am informed by the legal authorities of the railway that this is the proper plan to pursue-that the name of the company or the subsidiary must be employed.


William Stevens Fielding: I can understand that as the law now stands the minister's position is right when it is a case of continuing charters possessed by subsidiary companies and operating under them. But that difficulty could be overcome and the point raised by the hon. member for Brome could be met by legislation-passed either at this or another session-transferring all the powers of these various companies to the Canadian National Railway Company. After that there would be no need of continuing the name "Canadian Northern". It would be a proper thing to do and we should not have the confusion which results from using the terms "Canadian National" and "Canadian Northern" which confusion is all the greater because the initials are the same in both cases.


Mr. COPP:: Before the clause carries I
desire to say that this discussion would not have been so long drawn out had it not been for the unfair action taken by hon. gentlemen opposite in refusing to allow members on this side to discuss this measure, and the matters connected with it, as freely as they have taken the opportunity of doing themselves. The character of this Bill is such as to encourage members in other sections of Canada in need of branch lines, or extensions, to ask why they should not be granted the same privilege. When that line of argument was followed, the Chairman ruled it was out of order, and he asked the House to give unanimous consent in order that the discussion might be

continued. Hon. gentlemen opposite, however refused to give that consent, and thus restricted the scope of the debate as regards members on this side. Hon. gentlemen opposite did that despite the fact that every session the Opposition agree to deviations from the rules-when the session is well advanced-in order to expedite business.
The Minister of Railways is asking permission to build lines of railway along the following routes:
A line from a point at or near Prince Albert thence northerly to a point at or near township fifty-seven, range twenty-live, west of the second meridian, with a branch line commencing at a point on above line at or near township fifty-two, range twenty-five, west of the second meridian, and running in a generally easterly direction to range fifteen west of the second meridian;


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House when this matter was brought up before, but I would point out that the clause has been amended and that it is not now exactly in the form in which the hon. member read it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What change has been made?


Georges Henri Boivin: All the words after
the word " with " in the third line in subsection (a) have been stricken out, so that it now reads:
A line from a point at or near Prince Albert thence northerly to a point at or near township fifty-seven, range twenty-five, west of the second meridian.
The paragraph stops there.


Mr. OOPP:: I read two or three more lines than I need have read. But in reference to the line of railway my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) ,i.s asking this committee to grant a charter .for. I think he said a few moments ago, in answer to an inquiry by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fieilding), that it would be something like 50 miles in length, and I also understood him to say that the estimated cost of construction would be about $35,000 per mile. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that is not sufficient information. I think, the hon. minister, as representing the Canadian Northern railway, which is asking for this charter, should be in a position to give this committee information regarding the territory through which this railway will run, the population in the settlements along the route, and the traffic possibilities, so that hon. members will be able to decide whether or not it be in the interests of the Canadian National system to grant this charter. This
line is going to cost a large amount of money to build, and, as has been pointed out, other portions of the Canadian National Railway system have cost this country a great deal of money. The question that naturally arises in the minds of every hon. member is: Whether this construction is going to 'be in the interests of Canada and of the system as a whole, and of public ownership? Some information, I submit, should be given by the Minister of Railways before he asks this committee to accept his proposition.
I take the next branch line:
From a point on the main line of the Canadian National railways between the crossing of the North Saskatchewan River and Radis-son, thence in a generally northerly and northwesterly direction to a point on the Company's authorized line at or near Meeting Lake;
What is required in regard to the railway suggested in section (a) is also required in regard to this railway: we should have accurate information. It is all very well for the Minister of Railways to say: "We have all this information in the vaults of the Canadian National railway in the city of Toronto." But what good is that to hon. members? The information should be brought before this committee. It is of no interest to hon. members to know that Mr. Hanna says that this is going to be a paying proposition, nor is it of any interest to me, Sir, to be told that the Board of Directors of the Canadian National railways believe this will be a paying proposition. If they have that information available, it should be here, not in the city of Toronto.


Mr. LONG:: I would like to ask the hon. member if he does not know in regard to that particular section of railway that the information given to the Railway Committee on the points he mentions convinced every member of that committee from his side of the House of the potential value of the road and they wanted to give the route to their particular friends, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?


Albert James Smith Copp: Loud and prolonged applause ! I may tell my hon. friend that I. know nothing about what, took place in the Railway Committee-and a great many hon. members on this side of the House are in the same position. If that information was brought before the Railway Committee, then, Sir, I say that is all the greater reason why it should be brought before this committee. And if that information was before the Railway Committee it surely would


John Flaws Reid: The points where the roads start.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How far?


John Flaws Reid: I cannot give that information now; I do not happen to have it before me. Of course, the hon. member is entitled to all information in connection with the matter, and I wall not ask that the Bill go through if hon. members do not want it to go through without this information being furnished. But these Railway Bills are sent to the Railway Committee so that all this detailed information may be submitted to and considered by that committee. That procedure was followed in this case; the railway officials appeared before the committee; the information was obtained, and the committee unanimously passed the Bill. If the hon. member wants all these files and details I have no objection to getting the information for him; no hon. member will be able to say that I withheld information. If it is his intention to hold up the Bill in the absence of this information, of course, I must submit. But the fact that the money must subsequently he voted for this purpose would seem to justify the passing of the Bill, particularly in view of the fact that all the details were considered by the Railway Committee.
Mr. 'COPP: My hon. friend should not suggest that it is my purpose to hold up the Bill. I have only occupied about ten or fifteen minutes of the time of the committee; the minister has taken an hour or two in discussing his side of it. It is not my intention unnecessarily to delay the Bill, but I do think we should have more direct and accurate information in regard to it. If the information was before the Railway Committee, surely it would' not take long to place it before this committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the title:
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the title carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not see the force-
At Six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess.
The Committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before six o'clock I
asked the minister for certain information. I presume that in the meantime he has had an opportunity of consulting his officials and is now prepared to tell the House something more about these railways. He told us that he did not wish to withhold any information he possessed, but the trouble is that he does not possess any. Otherwise, I am sure he would be willing to part with it. Will these roads when built he Government-owned?


John Flaws Reid: Government-owned,
entirely, because the total cost will have to be voted by Parliament.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Being entirely Government owned, will they be subject to municipal taxation in the province or provinces in which they are built?


John Flaws Reid: Yes, because the property will be in the name of the Canadian Northern railway. These extensions will be Government-owned entirely also because there are no bonds against these extensions. The outstanding bonds, of course, are only on the roads so far completed. The Canadian Northern system in Ontario and other provinces is subject to taxation by the municipalities, and the only parts o* the Government system that- will not pay taxes, until further legislation on this subject is brought down, will be the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental, or any other road" purchased outright in the name of the Crown.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister will remember that we had this subject up last year. In the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec we have a large mileage of Government owned railways, and these roads pay no taxes at .all. While we derive no advantage, from a municipal standpoint, from the existence of these railways we of course, have to pay our taxes just as much as the people who live in Ontario and the West. Now the amount of municipal taxation that might be paid on the Grand Trunk and other roads is enormous. Does the Government think it is fair that some provinces should be allowed to tax for municipal purposes the Government roads, while other provinces cannot? Does not the minister think that there should be a uniform system throughout all the provinces, and that if r Government road in Ontario pays municipal taxes, Government roads in Prince Edward
Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should be in exactly the same position.


John Flaws Reid: That is a very important question, and it 'has been brought to my attention forcibly by the small towns along the Transcontinental, some of which are practically railway towns and need assistance in building their schools and churches and municipal institutions, but to which the railway pays no taxes. I cannot see Why there should not be some arrangement Whereby the railway should pay taxes to the municipalities. But it is a pretty big question and would take a whole day to discuss. My own opinion-I am not expressing the Government's opinion at all-is that these railways which run through the towns and villages and municipalities should pay taxes. I do not see any reason why they should be exempt. But they have been exempt since Confederation. It is a matter that must be taken up and decided by the Government one way or the other in the near future, but it would be impossible for me to bring this matter up and have it decided during the present session. Of course, an Act of Parliament would be required for the reason that all Government property in the name of the Crown at the present time is exempt.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister says it
has been so since (Confederation. Quite so. Until the Canadian Northern was taken over by the Government, none of the Government roads in Canada paid any taxes, and they were not assessed. The Intercolonial never paid a cent of taxation in our province; nobody ever thought of it. We in Nova Scotia have no objection to conditions continuing as they are, provided that the same system is in vogue everywhere else. But when Government roads are paying taxes in other provinces we do not want the roads that run through our provinces in the East to be exempt 'from-taxation, because the people of these provinces, of course, are obliged to pay their share of taxation.


John Flaws Reid: I do not think it would be fair to- exempt from taxation a private road that is taken over by the Government. These roads, such as the Canadian Northern, for instance, are taxable because they are not directly in the name of the Crown, but were acquired by virtue of the country holding the stock. In other cases, the deed is directly in the name of the Crown. In order to make the Intercolonial, the Transcontinental, and the Hudson Bay railways

pay taxes a special Act would have to be passed declaring that'all Government roads should pay taxes. The question is a large one and I could not bring it up this session, but it is such a live issue, especially along the Transcontinental, that something will have to be done to give assistance to the municipalities, and I think the law will have to be changed to bring all of the Government roads on the same footing. In the Lower Provinces the Canadian Pacific pays taxes all the way down to St. John, and I suppose on the Dominion Atlantic Railway also, while the Intercolonial does not. It is not fair that one road should pay taxes and the other roads should be exempt.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The whole Intercolonial was not always a Government-owned road. The Eastern Extension was owned by the Eastern Extension Railway Company and paid taxes until it was taken over by the Government, when no more taxes were paid, because the identity of the property as the Eastern Extension Railway disappeared. That, of course is what we expected. That is the theory. There is considerable Government property also in the city of Halifax on which there is no municipal taxation. I think that all Government-owned property throughout the country should be treated alike. If a Government-owned railway pays taxes in the West or in Ontario let Government-owned railways in the East pay taxes, and vice versa. The railways should be all on the same basis so far as taxation is concerned, and I would urge that principle on the minister.


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member ie
absolutely right in his view, but in acquiring the roads in New Brunswick which we took over last year a deed was given to the Crown directly so that the company disappeared. In this case we merely took over the stock. I agree with the hon. menfber that all railways entirely owned by the Government should be treated in the same way so far as taxation is concerned.


John Howard Sinclair: The
minister should consider the view of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). He is an able lawyer and he has stated it as a principle of law that property of the Crown is not liable to municipal taxation. If these railways are the property of the Crown will the minister explain why they are to be subject to taxation? I presume he must have looked into the law appertaining to the question.

If the title of the Government to these various roads is good, then they are the property of the Crown and should be exactly on the same basis as the Intercolonial railway and the Transcontinental.


John Flaws Reid: I have consulted the
legal authorities of my department. If any one had a claim against the particula [DOT] road which my hon. friend has mentioned, or one of the roads we took over last year in New Brunswick, the road having been deeded to the Minister of Railways representing the Crown, the suit would have to ibe brought against the Crown. In this particular case of the Canadian Northern, we took over the stock. We did not take a deed in fee simple of the whole lailway, and if any one were bringing a suit against that railway to-day he would have to enter it against the Canadian Northern railway and not against the Crown. I have taken legal advice in the matter, and am informed that the taxes must be paid. But apart from that, as it is a line running in opposition to the Canadian Pacific railway, my opinion is that they should both be placed on the same basis, and if one is not subject to taxation the other should also be exempt. I think they should all pay taxes in the future.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What the minister has said is no doubt correct, but his remarks after all bear upon legal technicalities. As a matter of fact, whether we own these railways in company form or directly as Crown property, they are the property of the Canadian people, and the Government should make up their mind whether the railways should all be free from municipal taxation or should all pay taxes. Although you can draw a legal distinction between the Canadian Northern railway running through Manitoba, say, and the Intercolonial railway running through New Brunswick, they are both the property of the Canadian people, and it would be fairer, more equitable and more businesslike if the Government decided that all the railways should be free from municipal taxation rather than leave some free while others are subject to taxation. But I am inclined to believe that it would be fairer if all Crown property, the property of the people of Canada, bore its fair share of municipal taxation. It is largely a matter of bookkeeping, and in the long run it will be found that the Canadian people pay. Where you have a railway running through a town and that railway pays no taxes, the inhabitants of that town have to pay what the railway should pay, and the pres-

ent system does not equalize the burden as I think a system of taxing all railways would equalize it. I call this .matter to the minister's attention. I think he largely partakes of my view, and it would be well to come to a decision on one ground or the other.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.


COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. S. F. Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 165 to regulate the sale and inspection of Commercial Feeding Stuffs, Bran, Shorts, Middlings and Chop Feeds.
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Before this motion is carried, Mr. Speaker, this being the only opportunity we shall have of discussing the merits of the Bill, I should like to make a few remarks with reference to matters dealt with in dt. The minister gave us an outline of what he deemed to be the scope of the Bill in introducing the resolution, which really embodied the Bill; and so far as I could gather from his remarks, he was very anxious to take care of the accumulation of screenings at the various elevators and mills throughout the country, which, he stated, amounted to something in the neighbourhood of 150,000 tons per lammum. He -went on to refer to the great value of these screenings as feeding stuff and pointed ont the advantage it would be to those engaged in agriculture in Canada to have this stuff placed at their disposal, adding that it was the intention of the department to see that proper safeguards were enacted to Temove the most objectionable qualities of this stuff:
This question is not a new one by any means. The average citizen has but a very faint idea of the extent of the great wealth that .some people are accumulating as a result of their operations in what was at one time considered refuse, or something that the average farmer in the past, when he cleaned his grain on his own farm, took good care to absolutely destroy. Some members of the House may recall that a good many years ago I took this matter up with the Government on a number of occasions particularly in reference to the Grain Board. When the regulations providing for the control of grain by the Dominion Grain Board were before the House, I considered that it was advisable
that some provision should be made in the Grain Act to take care of this stuff and guard against the danger of having it scattered broadcast throughout this country. I would like to quote a statement that was made by the right hon. Minister o.f Trade and Commeice '(Sir George Foster) as far back as 1914 when the matter was 'before the House. I will quote a few words which he uttered in answer to the argument I advanced on that occasion. They are as follows :
Whatever can be done by the Grain Board, and-after they have mapped out their work in this matter, whatever can be done by Dominion legislation to diminish this pest will de done. And I hope to be able at the next session of Parliament, to give a fairly clear idea as to what we think can be done by the Grain Board and through Parliament in this direction.
That was a. fairly encouraging promise to receive six years ago but from that day to the present time instead of making progress we have been taking retrograde steps and conditions to-day are worse than they were at .any time in the past. Notwithstanding that this Bill has some good features, on the whole I believe that it is a further retrograde step and that it does not attempt to deal with the great difficulties that we have to contend with and which ought to be taken care of by legislation. The minister made some reference to the remark which I made when the resolution was before the House in regard to the Bill that was passed by Parliament at the last session. I claimed that the Bill had disappeared in some mysterious manner and that it was inoperative and absolutely destroyed. The minister, in replying, said, for my information, that the Bill was still on the statute hook, and in effect and that consequently I was mistaken. I want to repeat what I said on that occasion. In moving the second reading of the Bill, I made this statement in reference to the various departments which have had control Of this question in the past:
We find that the Department of Inland Revenue was annexed to the Department of Customs and that the branch having to do with the work of the Dominion analyst was turned over to the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Now we have it turned over to the new Department of Public Health. Notwithstanding all the information that is available, I do not believe that in the Department of Public Health you will find any one particularly interested, or who has a direct interest through his association with the agricultural interests of the country.
I believe that the seed branch, the veterinary director general and the livestock branch through the Department of Agriculture should have control over the matter.

And so on.
If, as is pointed out by the Dominion analyst, shorts are simply ground up bran and are not shorts at all and if it is only, as the manager of one of the milling companies pointed out, by the addition of screenings that it is brought up to the required standard, I hope that a stop will be put to this at an early date.
These were my views on that occasion, and for that reason I was very much pleased to .see that this matter was taken over by the Minister of Agriculture to be administered by his department. You may recall that early in the session there were a number of Bills introduced by the hon. Minister of Public Health (Mr. Rowell). Among them was one dealing with commercial feeding stuffs and another known as the Pood and Drugs Act. Bill No. 32 was the one which had reference to. feeding stuff and it was introduced on March 23. Bill No. 27 was introduced on March 22. Bill No. 27 has already passed both Houses of Parliament and it removes from the [DOT]statute the Adulteration Act, Revised Statutes of Canada 1906, chapter 133, chapiter 4 of the statutes of 1907 and chapter 4 of the statutes of 1913. These latter were amendments to the original Act of 1906. It also removes from the statute books chapter 19 of the statutes of 1914 and chapter 9 of the statutes of 1915. These were all cancelled when this Bill was passed by Parliament. I would like to call your attention to the original Act which was known as the Adulteration Act. The interpretation clause reads:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "minister" means the Minister of Inland Revenue; (b) "food" includes every article used for food or drink by man or cattle, and every ingredient intended for mixing with the food or drink of man or cattle for any purpose whatsoever.
It goes on to mention different things and proceeds as follows in section 3:
Food shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this Act,-
(a)	If any substance has been mixed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength;
(b)	If any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article;
(c)	If any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted;
(d)	If it is an imitation of or is sold under the name of another article;
(e)	If it consists wholly or in part of a diseased or decomposed or putrid or rotten animal or vegetable substance, whether manufactured or not;
(f)	If it contains any added poisonous ingredient or any ingredient which may render such an article injurious to the health of persons or cattle consuming it;

(g)	if its strength or purity falls below the standard, or its constituents are present in quantity not within the limits of variability fixed by the Governor in Council as hereinafter provided;
(h)	if it is so coloured or coated or polished or powdered that damage is concealed, or if it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is;
(i)	in the case of milk or butter, if it is the produce of a diseased animal or of an animal fed upon unwholesome food.
The Act of last session was simply an addition and came under paragraph (j). Now you will observe that all these different sections- (a), (b), (c), down to (i)-have been cancelled by the Act that was put through this session. There are several pages in the statute from which I have quoted dealing with matters connected with the operation of the Act. I may say, penalties were provided; the penalties have also been cancelled. While, in a sense, the Act of- last session may remain on the statute book it is only a fragment containing four lines which have absolutely no meaning and will undoubtedly be removed. Leaving it there must have been an oversight on the part of some one, bearing in mind that the whole Adulteration Act has been absorbed in other Acts and the clauses which I have referred to have been cancelled. Consequently it is not correct to state that the Act of last session is still in force and effect, because there is no machinery for putting it into force, nor are any penalties provided. Therefore, there is virtually no statute at all in existence except a fragment, and if that should remain in .force itwill be devoid of meaning.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in the Bill which was introduced on the 23rd March, the day before the Pure Foods Bill was brought in, there was embodied in the Pure Foods Bill a section which contained the Bill of last session, viz., section 12. That section read as follows;
In the case of bran or shorts or middlings, it shall be considered to be adulterated if it contains anything that is not a product of wheat, or, in the case of corn bran, if it contains anything that is not a product of maize or Indian corn.
This was identically the same as the provision of last session which was embodied in the Bill referred to and remained in it for several weeks. It was, however, withdrawn when the measure came up for second reading, and the new Bill that is before the House to-night was substituted for it. You can see therefore that instead of making an advance along the line which we have been endeavouring to follow-to promote which, in accordance with the de-

sire of the committee on agriculture, and of the House the legislation of last session was enacted-the attempt is made by the present Bill to cancel all that we had accomplished under the Bill of last session and to revert to a condition of affairs that will be much worse than the state which existed previous to that time.
Let me point out that in 1917 something happened with regard to the adulteration of mill feeds that has absolutely destroyed the feeding qualities of those feeds,-when I say "mill feeds" I am referring to the products of wheat in the milling of flour. You may think, Mr. Speaker, that I am taking this matter too seriously. I want to point out-notwithstanding the statements that were made in the House the other night by the minister when he said that he had been President of the Western Livestock Union for two years prior to 1917 and that the farmers were clamouring for this feed from one end of Canada to the other-that the farmers in the county from which I come are using mill feeds possibly to a greater extent than they do in any county in Canada. The average farmer, instead of selling the produce of the farm in a raw state, is really, in a sense, a manufacturer because he not only feeds what he raises himself but buys immense quantities of this stuff and uses it for feeding purposes. I want to remind the minister that the factory output of dairy products of the small constituency which I represent-although that constituency is nearly one-half urban -has been for the past few years equal to that of the whole province of British Columbia from which he comes, notwithstanding that within that province there are about two hundred and sixty million acres. The factory output of the county of Oxford, on the whole, has nearly doubled that of the province of British Columbia; and I may therefore be a little more in touch with the effect of these mill feeds than those other hon. members who come from constituencies where they do not specialize in the feeding of livestock to the extent that we ido in Oxford. I have pointed out and called the attention of Parliament on a number of occasions-not only last session but this session as well-to the state which we are getting into by neglecting to enact proper safeguards with reference to the development of agriculture in Canada, and the importance under present conditions of increasing the output to the greatest possible degree. I have pointed out that to increase the prosperity of this country and to overcome the difficulties
which are facing us at the present time, which difficulties have been, and are, receiving the attention of Parliament at the present session, we must depend more upon the agricultural output than upon anything else. To confirm what I say all you have to do is to look at the weekly reports of the Department of Agriculture. The statistics given in those reports, show an almost appalling decrease in the output of dairy produce, and of many other things on the farm; and you are going to find before the present year closes that, instead of increasing our output as we should, there is a marked decrease in those products. Furthermore, the livestock industry of this country is receiving a setback to-day that demands the attention of Parliament. Everything that possibly can be done should be done to encourage rather than to retard the development of agriculture. I know that if I make any reference to conditions in Western Canada somebody will get up and say that the people in the East are very much interested in what is taking place in the West. Now I have seen demands for legislation made to Parliament, -not only during the present but during previous sessions

Iby representatives from Western Canada and other parts of the country, and I will venture to state that rarely, if ever, has any objection been raised by the members from Ontario with respect to doing anything to develop the industries or the natural resources of any of the other provinces.
I was somewhat amused this afternoon and this evening while listening to some of the arguments advanced against the Bill that has just been disposed of with regard to. branch line railways. Ontario had to undertake work of that kind, and year after year there has been a deficit in the operation of their colonization railway, but there is no clamour from the province that the Dominion iGovernment should come to their assistance. All we asked was the usual subsidy which was denied for many years. We are glad to- see railways built into the newer districts in order to develop the resources of the Dominion. But at the same time I want to remind hon. members that the fertility of our rich farm lands in Western Canada cannot be maintained under the present methods of farming, and that the present unsatisfactory condition will certainly become worse unless methods are adopted to arrest the depletion of the natural fertility of the soil. To-day the progressive farmer in Ontario realizes that in order to maintain soil fertility it is abso-

lutely necessary and essential that he should feed to his stock not only all he grows on his farm but a great deal more besides. I know some hon. gentlemen will say: But how can you farm those large areas in the West under such conditions? I admit that there is a great temptation to bring under cultivation those large areas and to " mine " them, but it will be conceded by those who are more familiar with conditions in the West than I am that already the result of the policy that has been pursued for some years past fa deplorably evident in the luxuriant crops of weeds that always follow euch farming methods. I remember that when I was a young lad our Ontario farmers considered the .Canada thistle one of the greatest pests we had. But I believe that weed has rendered a greater service to the province in an agricultural sense than anything else I know of, for it has been in no small degree the means of forcing the farmers to adopt better methods. There is absolutely no trouble with the Canada thistle to-day because under a proper system of farming it has no chance to overrun the land.
But the successful feeding of livestock requires certain satisfactory conditions. I may say to some of my friends from the West that it has been a common thing for fanners in my constituency to buy store hogs in the West, particularly in the vicinity of Calgary, to prepare them for the market on mill feed brought from the West, and to dispose of those animals at a profit in connection with their dairy operations I pointed out during the present session that I did not believe there was to-day a cheese factory in my constituency manufacturing cheese, nor a creamery where a pound of butter is being manufactured. Some hon. members may say that this has no relation to the Bill before the House. It has a very direct relation to it. If the farmers of the county of Oxford and other constituencies can purchase pure mill feed at a reasonable price they can prepare their hogs for the market at a fair profit even under present conditions. But after paying a very high price for this feed, if they have to frequently throw out of the pen pigs that have died as a result of the poisonous weed seeds contained in the feed, is it any wonder that these farmers have become discouraged and now ask Parliament to take steps to protect them? Is it any wonder that they are discouraged when they find the best animals in their dairy herds take sick and die after being fed large quan-

titles of bran, which under ordinary conditions is the best feed for cows when they are freshening? For a long time our farmers were puzzled to account for their losses, but are now satisfied that the trouble is due to the poison contained in these mill feeds, and in consequence they refuse to feed their stock any quantity of mill feed at that particular time. Abundant evidence of the adulteration of these mill feeds is in the possession of the Department of Agriculture, and why such a Bill as this should be introduced under present conditions is something that I am unable to' understand.
If you read the definitions contained in the context of the Bill you will find there is a distinction made between commercial feeding stuffs and feeding stuffs. The Bill provides:
(1) "commercial feeding stuffs" means any article offered for sale for the feeding of livestock and poultry, including feeds stated to possess medicinal as well as nutritive properties, hut not Including,-
(a)	hay and straw;
(b)	whole grains of wheat, rye, harley, oats, corn, buckwheat or flax seed;
(c)	chop feeds;
(d)	bran, shorts or middlings when unmixed with other materials;
"When unmixed with other materials." But if it is mixed with other -materials, it comes under the class of commercial feeding stuffs. Then clause 3 provides:
(3) "feeding situft" means any commercial feeding stuff, bran, shorts or middlings and chop feed.
It is quite evident that section (d) of clause 2 contemplates the mixing of bran and shorts with other stuff to make a commercial feed. Section 6 of the Bill provides :
'6. All bran, shorts or middlings sold' or offered1, exposed or held for sale must meet the requirements as to quality and chemical contents established for them respectively by regulations under this Act, or be registered' and sold as comercial feeding stuffs as required by sections three and four of this Act.
Now, I do not wish to refer to this Bill clause by clause; the committee stage will be the proper time to do that; (but I do want to point out the clause which provides that the minister may by regulation do certain things. On several occasions during this session and other sessions I have pointed out that there is no necessity to have so many of these regulations, but that wherever possible they should be embodied! in the Bill. Provision is also made for the appointment of an advisory board under clause (a).

(a) to appoint an advisory board which may at his request prepare and recommend to him such regulations as it is of opinion should he established under this Act;
The minister may appoint a board to furnish him with information as to what regulations should be framed. Well, we have been discussing this matter for a good many years, and I fail to understand why hon. members should not be consulted and have their views embodied in this Bill rather than that some board should be appointed and consulted by the minister for that purpose. I believe 'there are enough members in this House with such broad experience in this matter as to warrant their views * being placed on record here rather than that we should empower the minister to go outside and select a board whom he may desire to consult with regarding these regulations.


Michael Clark: That is the way they do with the Budget.


Donald Sutherland: And it is the way they do with some other things. I could remind my hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) that we put a similar clause in a Bill about three years ago. When the Military Service Act was being put into force we empowered the Minister of Agriculture of that day to appoint a representative of the Department of Agriculture on the exemption tribunals in every military district. Well, what was the result? We very honestly and innocently thought that the men selected for that purpose would be in sympathy with the enforcement of the Military Service Act and with the Government which had just been elected. But we found that in every military district in Ontario men had been selected by the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) for this post who were not only opposed to compulsory service but also to Union Government and had stumped against them in the election. These were the kind of men appointed in the London, Toronto .and Kingston military districts. This was under a provision similar to the provisions of this Bill. Yet we are again asked in this Bill blindly to place a power in the hands of the minister to make a. selection regardless of what the opinion.of members of this House may be. I will read to you one of the objects of having a board of this kind:
The minister shall have power,-[DOT]
(a) to appoint an advisory board which may at his request, prepare and recommend to him such regulations as it is of opinion should toe established under this Act;'....
(e)	to make regulations prescribing the size, colour and character of the tags or labels to be used for the purposes of this Act, and the size 216
and kind of printing to be used for any particulars required to be printed on such tags or labels;
When the resolutions were under consideration I referred to a report of the Department of Agriculture tabled during the last session. I will read from this report, made by H. B. iSifton, analyst in the Seed Branch, who furnished me with this memorandum. Referring to weed seed contents of bran and shorts, he says:
Two hundred and thirteen samples have been analysed in connection with the investigation of Canadian feeding stuffs. Of these one hundred and three have been found to contain weed seeds authoritatively stated to be poisonous. Eighteen more have seeds suspected of having poisonous properties but not yet fully investigated. Of thirty-two samples of shorts the records show twenty-seven containing poisonous weed seeds, and five with unground seeds of noxious weeds. In the case of bran, nineteen out of twenty-eight samples show poison seeds, and eight have noxious weeds.
Complaints have been received of many lots, especially of shorts which produce harmful effects when fed to pigs, and of others which the animals refuse to eat. The loss of faith in screenings as feed, reflected in the Farmer's Advocate editorial of last week, is becoming widespread. This is doubtless due to two causes -the sale of uncleaned screenings for feed, and imperfect work in recleaning. In nineteen samples of "recleaned" screenings received at the laboratory since July 1, the average number of mustards per ounce is two hundred and one. The cleanest sample contains seventy-nine per ounce, and the dirtiest has two hundred and seventy-nine.
It seems urgent that prompt action should be taken for the protection of farmers from harmful and unpalatable feeding stuffs. It is also necessary to improve the purity of recleaned screenings if faith in them is not to he entirely lost by the public.
The minister stated the other night that 201 mustard seeds in an ounce of feed is less than one per cent, the maximum amount of impurities which he proposes to allow in these mill feeds under the regulations he intimated will be enacted. Which means that he proposes to permit the presence of 3,216 mustard seeds in a pound of mill feed. It is perfectly clear to every one who understands anything about this matter that there is no justification for having any of this deleterious matter in mill feed, such as bran and shorts. It is perfectly clean and pure when it is milled. The millers admit that they pipe the screenings 9 p.m. back into it after the milling process is completed. Under the regulations now in effect it is permissible for them to put as much of that stuff in the feed ias they .see fit, because olf the fact that the amendment to the Adulteration



Act of last session was dismembered and made of no force or effect. In December 1917 it was provided by Order in Council that while heretofore bran and shorts should be clean and free from impurities, it was provided that they would be considered pure if there were not more than 25 vital noxious seeds in a pound of it. That would imply-and the millers admit it-that the millers could put as many non-noxious weed seeds in as they saw fit. One of the most poisonous weed seeds found in mill feeds is what is known as worm seed mustard, a small yellow seed the vitality of which it is practically impossible to destroy 'by grinding. It is not considered as a noxious weed, though more pigs have died as a result of feeding them this stuff than from the feeding of the other noxious weeds. It is quite permissible for the millers, under the legislation which is at present on the statute book, to run this stuff into their bran and shorts. Last session, when this matter was before the Committee on Agriculture, notwithstanding the fact that the millers had an opportunity of appearing there and that there was considerable opposition by certain persons in the committee to doing anything in the matter, the following resolution was moved in that committee and carried, hut for some unexplained reason was not submitted to the House:
That in view of the serious results from the adulteration of bran and shorts by adding thereto great quantities of weed seeds, both ground and unground, annually resulting in the death of many animals and rerious in;ury to the health of others besides distributing harmful weed seeds throughout the country to the detriment of those who engage in agriculture, this committee would respectfully recommend that immediate action should be taken to deal with this question by passing and putting into effect at the earliest opportunity Bill No. 7, an Act to amend the Adulteration Act.
The minister told us in introducing these resolutions that the Committee on Agriculture had looked over the proposed Bill and that they were favourable to it. I was not present when the matter was before the committee and I do not know what consideration w.as given to it. But I (have read the resolution which was adopted last year by the Committee on Agriculture with regard to the Bill which was then before it, embodying a provision [DOT] which was made law at the last session of Parliament but has since been removed from the statute hook and has not been incorporated in the Bill now before us.


Mr. CRERAR:: Has the legislation pass* ed last session to which my hon. friend refers been repealed?


Donald Sutherland: As the hon. gentleman was not in the House when I referred to it, perhaps I may be pardoned for referring to this matter again. The Act of last session has most undoubtedly been repealed. Bill No. 27, which was known as the Act respecting Food and Drugs, was passed and a good many sections of the Adulteration Act embodied in this Bill. The Act says: "The acts mentioned in the schedule hereto are repealed." That included the Adulteration Act of 1906 and the amendments of 1907, 1913, 1914 and 1915. For some reason or other the amendment of last session has been left on the statutes, and the Act which it amended has been repealed. There is no sense or meaning to it as it is. There is no Aict to amend, the penalties also are repealed. Bill No. 32, introduced by the Minister of Health, entitled " An Act respecting Commercial Feeding Stuffs " had embodied in it a section containing the Act of 1919 with regard to the adulteration of bran and shorts reading as follows:
In the case of bran or shorts or middlings, it shall be considered to be adulterated if it contains anything that Is not a product of wheat, or, in the case of corn bran, it contains anything which is not a product of maize or Indian corn.
This Bill which I referred to was withdrawn by the minister, and the Bill which is now before the House has been introduced with a view to taking its place.
The minister referred to the fact that there are about 150,000 tons of screenings that must be taken care of. I could not help thinking that he was much more concerned about taking care of the screenings at the elevators than about the livestock interests of the country and agriculture generally. I do not like to say that., but I can come to no other conclusion in view of the fact that in referring to. the screenings the minister stated:
No. 3 Northern wheat very often contains 2J per cent, so right here by the proposed regulations we intend to make we shall have a most decided improvement in the quality of our bran.
The millers contend, and it was actually stated, I believe,, by Mr. Black, of the Ogilvie Milling Company, that in some sections of the West where the grain does not pass through terminal elevators as much as 10 per cent of wheat they purchase are screenings and dirt, and that they were justified in disposing of it in the way they

do. The millers made no bones about it. They even said: "If it is as bad as represented to be, why does not Parliament act in the matter"? Well, Parliament did act last session, and we thought we were taking steps to provide against what has been going on, but you see the conditions with which we are confronted to-day.
With reference to the board with which the minister is going to consult I made the statement after looking over the resolutions that I thought the millers had been consulted with reference to the matter, and not the farmers of this country. The minister rather resented a statement of that kind, but I venture to state that there was some substance for such a suspicion from the fact that he stated that when the board was appointed the millers would have representation on it and their interests would be looked after. Now there is absolutely no justification at all for having the millers consulted as far as bran and shorts are concerned; it might, be advisable with respect to other commercial feeding stuffs. I believe that there are provisions in this Bill which will enable the department to provide safeguards against what has been going on. with regard to other commercial feeding stuffs. I am not objecting to those provisions of the. Bill. I think they are very desirable, but I do want to impress on the House and on the minister that if this Bill goes through in its present form, it will do more than possibly anything else could to discourage farmers in the livestock and dairy business. We have been appropriating money for scientific research and other purposes of that, kind, and it is well to do so. I want to say, however, that I do not believe we are getting satisfactory results from the money that has been and is being provided by Parliament for our experimental farm system in Canada. I believe the system has failed to produce the results it should, and failed utterly to lead in regard to the question dealt with in this Bill. Is it any -wonder that many of the provinces have had to step in and take over this work themselves, and that they do not rely upon the experiments conducted by the federal experimental farm system? Yet we expend over $1,200,000 annually on experimental farms. We have in the vicinity of Ottawa, in connection with the Central Experimental Farm, a park where the citizens can enjoy themselves. It is one of the features of Ottawa. During the war there was more money expended for labour on that farm than there was any justification for, in order to provide a park 216*
for the entertainment of visitors to the city and the citizens of Ottawa. A,s far as the province from which I come is concerned, and we are credited with the benefit of its expenditure at the farm at Ottawa, we depend almost entirely upon what is being done by the provincial government along experimental lines. As far as experimental work is concerned the province of Ontario has been forced by necessity to do this work itself, and establish her own farms, notwithstanding the fact that the people of the province contribute about 50 per cent of the expense of all the experimental work that is being done in the other provinces. In view of that fact, and that we are producing about 52 per cent of the total dairy products of Canada I think we are entitled to some little consideration under this Bilj. We have endeavoured ini the past, to carry on in a way that wonld be profitable. I know what is taking place; I come in contact with evidences of it every day in the week when I ,am at home. I find many farmers disposing, of their dairy herds and going out of the business. You often hear people referring to the farmers as profiteers and of the enormous prices the farmers are getting for dairy products-milk, butter, cheese, and 60 forth; and it has been thought necessary for this Government to appoint ,a Board of Commerce and turn it loose on the farmers. One of the first things the Board did -was to attack the farmers of Ontario along these very lines, and you can already see the effect of it. There will be millions of dollars lost to the people of this province and the Dominion as a result of wihat we did at the last session of Parliament. Yet to-day there is not on that Board, nor has there been, a man who had any interest in or any sympathy with those engaged in agriculture.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the- fact that we are not now discussing the appointment of the Board of Commerce. I fear he is wandering far from the subject matter of the Bill.


Donald Sutherland: I do not wish to transgress the rules of the House, 'but I have been endeavouring to show the connection between mill feeds and dairy products, and I have just incidentally referred to some of the other handicaps under which the dairymen of the province of Ontario are labouring.
There is something rather significant in connection with the accumulation of screen-

ings at the elevators. We have in this country what is known as the Board of Grain Commissioners, and I have here a return which was brought down to tthe House with reference to its operations. There are five terminal elevators under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners. The quantities of screenings that are shipped out of these elevators are really enormous. At Port Arthur, for the crop year 191415, the screenings taken in at that elevator amounted to 357,780 pounds, and there was shipped out 6,193,560 pounds. For the next year 445,740 pounds was taken in and 12,697,400 pounds was shipped out; for the year 1916-17, 68,800 pounds was taken in and 5,603,940 pounds was shipped out; and for the year 1917-18, which is the last year for which I was able to get information at the time, the amount taken in was 923,000 pounds and the amount shipped out 8,260,895 pounds. There is a similar condition of affairs at Moosejaw, Saskatoon and Vancouver, though the quantities are not so large in these places as in Port Arthur. Now, the Government, through the Grain Commissioners, have been operating these elevators and it is a rather remarkable fact that enormous profits have been made by these elevators which have been worked by the Government. Outside of the salaries of the Board of Grain Commissioners, the profits for these five years at the Port Arthur elevator alone amounted to $1,177,940.05, and at the ' other elevators the amount was also very large. I am satisfied that it would be greatly to the advantage of the farmer of Western Canada if these screenings were taken from the grain before it ever reached the elevators. He is paying freight on them both ways very often, and the material is being disposed of by the Government Grain Commissioners with the result that large profits are going somewhere. I do not know where they have been going, are the Government partners in it, but I do know the farmer who furnishes the material has not received the profits. I want to repeat that it is not a matter of so great concern that the last available cent may be received for these screenings, as it is to see that their impurities are not placed in the mill feeds that are sold at high prices to the farmers of the country to say nothing of polluting the .farms with weeds. I would judge that the purpose of the present Bill is to permit the manufacturers of commercial feeding stuffs to mix feeding stuffs rather than to provide, as we endeavoured to do last session, means to ensure the purity of the bran and shorts 
that are being disposed of. It is well known not only to dairymen but to the men who raise pure-bred stock for commercial purposes, that bran is one of the most valuable feedsbuffs, an essential for young and growing stock. Yet, to-day it is harly safe for him to feed it at all. He cannot afford to pay the high prices and also take the risk of the effect it will have on his stock. We have a Wheat Board who have been handling wheat, and one of the results of their operations has been that they have not encouraged the milling of wheat in Canada but rather the opposite or the exportation of whole wheat, which has been shipped out to such an extent that very little mill feed has been available in the country of late. Mr. Speaker, it may seem an imposition on the good nature of hon. members for me to take so much time, and were it not for the fact that it is many years since I first endeavoured to have Parliament deal effectively with this question which is getting more unsatisfactory from year to year, I would not presume to encroach on the patience of the House. But I am satisfied that if this Bill goes through in its present form it will spell blue ruin to the agricultural interests of the country. The 'livestock industry will receive a further setback, and the plea that we have been making for a general practice of economy and efficiency throughout the country, and our advocacy of everything that will encourage thrift and promote industry, would appear empty and meaningless. It is somewhat significant that Bill No. 32, which received its first reading and remained on the Order Paper week after week until all the provisions of the Adulteration Act were disposed of, should quietly disappear, this Bill taking its place. The Bill which was withdrawn was a hundred per cent better than the present Bill inasmuch as it provided for the things which the Bill of last session sought to remedy but which are absolutely ignored in the present Bill. But clause 17 of the grain regulations still remains, enabling the milleT to sell bran as "pure bran," though it has in it all the devitalized weed seeds he sees fit, provided there is no more than twenty-five vital noxious weed seeds in a pound. I should think, in view of the reports from the offices of the various branches of. the Government, that something would have been done to improve this condition. It is only a short time ago that I received an answer to some questions I placed on the Order Paper with regard to standard stock feed. This is the re-cleaned screening of

which we have heard so much and which the minister claims, by experiments conducted1 at the experimental farm, proved to be more valuable than bran for feeding stuff. In answer to a question I asked on March 31 in regard to the analyses of stock foods there appears the following result of -the examination:
(b) Hulls and dirt	 40 per cent.
Mustards	
15	"	"Pennycress	
15	"	"*Lambs quarters	
18	"	"Foxtail	
9	"	"Others	
3	"	"
Your have heard the report of the analyst of the seed branch, Mr. Sifton, who has since, by reason of his ability, been induced to leave the Department of Agriculture and to become associated with Toronto University. I know the officers of the department were very much discouraged, that their hands were practically tied, and for that reason I was anxious to see this Bill come under the control of the Department of Agriculture in order that proper safeguards might be provided, because I expected there would be sympathy on the part of officers of the department in regard to the matter.
I feel, however, Mr. Speaker, that the-attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) has not been directed to this matter to the degree it should have been. I am satisfied that he must have been so busied with various other matters in connection with his department and with the business of the session, that he has not had sufficient time to carefully examine the Bill, otherwise it would not have been lacking in the provisions to which I have referred.
I do not wish to take up any further time of the House in connection with the matter more than to again point out how seriously it affects the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec where the dairying and livestock industry and winter feeding are developed to a greater extent than they are at the present time in Western Canada or its other provinces. But I am satisfied that, notwithstanding all these things, if there is proper provision in the Bill you will find that the farmers in the West will see that the threshers put screens in their separators that will take all these small seeds out of the grain at the threshing and in this way remove the great temptation which now exists to put these seeds back into the mill feeds and dispose of them at a high price to the farmers.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal in what my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) has been telling us both as regards the danger of feeding stock with these poisonous seeds and, what is the worst feature, the distribution that takes place by the seed passing through the stock, getting on the land and therefore covering our farms with weeds that it is almost impossible for us to keep down. One of the difficulties in buying feed for your stock is that you never know what you are buying, except you buy pure grain and have it thoroughly cleaned and ground up. That is the only way you can avoid getting these poisonous and other weed seeds on your land. Everything my hon. friend from South Oxford has said in reference to feeding this stuff is no doubt correct. I was going to make a suggestion to the minister. Section 7 reads as follows:
No grain, screenings or other ingredient which contains in excess of the quantity allowed by regulation, any seeds, damaged grain or other material designated by regulation of the minister as injurious to the health of livestock or poultry, shall be used as a constituent of any feedings stuffs.
Why not prohibit that class of feed altogether in place of allowing a certain amount of these seeds to be used by regulation? If it is injurious to livestock I suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture that he prohibit it altogether and not allow it to be sold under regulation. That is all I have to say in reference to this matter, because my hon. friend from South Oxford has covered it very capably.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the
Minister of Agriculture exercises his right to reply, it is my duty to inform hon. gentlemen that in doing so he will close the debate. If any other hon. gentleman desires to speak he may do so now.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Mr. Speaker, I have
listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) had to say in regard to the proposed Bill. This Bill is the product of the very best experts of the department of Agriculture who have carefully consulted the stock men, mill men and every one else whom we knew of as taking an interest in the feed business. There are about 150,000 tons of screenings at the head of the Lakes each year as a result of the cleaning process carried on in the elevators at that point. For several years feeds for livestock have been extremely scarce. Our American friends, being keenly alive to the value of these feeding stuffs, have been

very glad to import them into the United States. Rut on account of the scarcity of feed on this side, we deemed it advisable to utilize every possible pound of feed for caring for our stock. In actual experiments, as was mentioned by the hon. member for South Oxford, it has been proven that screenings are often better than bran in nutritive quality. I consider that we would not be doing our duty in sending these screenings out of the country or destroying them.
The objects of this particular Bill are to so guard against noxious weeds and to place these feeds before the public in such a condition that the farmer may know exactly what he is getting and so may be able to buy something that he knows all about. Heretofore these feeds have been adulterated to a very great extent, they have been sold and advertised very freely, and in many cases the farmer did not obtain what he thought he was getting. He paid a high price for feed which was in many cases very poor in quality, consisting of a mixture of oat hulls, ground straw, etc. By this Bill we propose to guard against that as far as possible.
My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) wanted to know why we do not keep out these seeds altogether. I may say that it is impossible, with the machinery which we have at our disposal at the present time, to entirely remove all seeds. In the case of bran, if the bran is turned out pure, consisting of the product of the wheat grain, with the small amount of seed that it is impossible to remove, it may be sold for bran, but the moment weed seeds are added to the bran it comes under the heading of commercial feeding stuffs and under the control of our inspectors.
In regard to black seed occurring in these screenings, I may say that our experiments have shown that as feeding stuffs it has almost no value at all, in addition to which it has been proven poisonous to small pigs. Under the regulations which it is proposed to make in connection with this Bill, we will control the actual amount of these black seeds, so that when the farmer buys a bag of commercial feeding stuffs he will have clearly stated on a tag the percentage of different grains contained therein and also the percentage of weed seeds. He will therefore buy it with his eyes entirely open and be able to judge for himself. It it very wide of the mark to say that the sale of screenings in this country has had any effect whatever on the reduction of our dairy products. We all know that owing to high wages and also to the high cost of

feed, the man who keeps an inferior cow on his place finds it utterly impossible to pay these prices and carry on dairying at a profit.
However, there are other men who maintain herds of higher quality who are making dairying pay well under present conditions. As far as prices are concerned I cannot clearly understand how the hon. member for South Oxford can possibly expect to buy cheap bran and cheap shorts produced from wheat that is ranging in price around $3 a bushel.


Donald Sutherland: I am sure the minister would not misquote what ! stated. I do not think I made any reference to the price. It was pure bran, not cheap bran, that I was advocating, I realize that the price of the commodity must be regulated by the price of the grain, and by supply and demand.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I may have been mistaken but I thought what the hon. member stated was that it was owing to the quality of this feed that dairy men were almost afraid to feed it to their cows-


Donald Sutherland: Certainly.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: and that therefore our dairy production U'as much less than it should be.


Donald Sutherland: Exactly.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think the hon. member will find that the falling off in dairy produce has been due rather to the lack of feed than to the quality of it.
With regard to this board which the minister is empowered to call under the proposed Act, I may say that it will probably be composed of one milling man, two of three livestock men probably, two or three men from the Department of Agriculture, and perhaps one dealer in feed, so that each section of the business will be fully represented. We are calling in their assistance so that we will arrive at a proper set of regulations that will be practicable and will work out well in all directions.
While the hon. member for South Oxford takes a rather pessimistic view of the present livestock conditions in this country, his brother farmers in Ontario apparently do not feel that way. It was only yesterday that I, along with the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie), had the pleasure of speaking at a picnic at Guelph where we celebrated the purchase in the Old Country of a bull for which 534,000 was paid,

the highest price ever paid in the British Empire tor a bull. Then, last week, two more Holstein breeders of Ontario went down to Minneapolis and purchased a two months' old calf for ?50,000. Apparently, therefore, all the farmers in Ontario do not feel pessimistic regarding the future of the livestock business. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this Bill has been carefully prepared. No doubt it is not perfect, it is quite likely that some improvements can be made in it, but it has been given very careful consideration by a set of experts in the Department of Agriculture who have carefully consulted many of the livestock men, and they think it is just about as perfect as it can be made under present conditions. Certainly it is an improvement on any of the legislation which has been enacted in the past. It will insure purer feed and will enable the farmer to know exactly what he is getting when he buys feed for his stock.


Mr. BOYCE:: I would like to know what provision has been made in the present Bill with regard to the use of bran and shorts for feed.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Under this Bill as long
as a man sells bran and shorts in a pure state, or as nearly pure as is possible, he is permitted to do so, but the moment he adds any weeds not in compliance with the regulations it' becomes "commercial feeding stuff'' instead of bran, and he can be prosecuted.
I should add, in addition to what I have already stated, that this Bill was given very careful consideration by the Committee of Agriculture of the House, and was adopted by it unanimously.
Motion for the second reading of the Bill agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section >2-definition:


James Alexander Robb: I suppose the minister understands that the term, "entire clean grain" would mean grain as delivered by the farmer to the mill. But supposing there was some pigeon grass in it?
Mr. TOLMIE,:	If it did not contain too
large a proportion of poisonous weed seeds it would then be suitable for chop feed; but if it contained a large quantity of those it would come under the head of "com-merciaU feeding stuff."


Donald Sutherland: I see that under
paragraph 1 of this section commercial feeding stuffs is defined as meaning "any
article offered for sale for the feeding of livestock and poultry." Under paragraph (d) it is held not to include bran, shorts or middlings when unmixed with other materials. Then subclause 3 contains this definition:
"feeding stuff" means any commercial feeding stuff, bran, shorts or middlings and chop feed.
Then I notice that in the balance of the Bill " feeding stuff " is referred to instead of " commercial feeding stuff " when one would almost infer that commercial feeding stuff was intended, and that bran and ' shorts would be referred to as feeding stuff. What is the object of these variations? What is the meaning of having bran and shorts when unmixed with other materials defined as commercial feeding stuffs? Is it contemplated that bran and shorts are to be mixed by the mixers of feed, and that only whenever they see fit bran and shorts are to be sold as bran and shorts? I am satisfied that is about the effect of it, because if people cannot buy the bran and shorts they will certainly have to do the next best thing, and buy a mixture containing, maybe, a very large proportion of bran- and shorts, and some other materials that have been added. It is absolutely impossible to carry on without having mill feeds of this kind. What is the effect of the two terms used?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Just as long as bran and shorts are named bran and shorts they are sold as such. If they are mixed with any of these seeds or other feeds, then they are classified under " commercial feeding stuffs." The term " feeding stuffs " in this Bill applies to all of those feeds.


Donald Sutherland: Even to " commercial feeding stuffs"?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: Consequently there is in the following section no distinction between mixtures of this kind and pure bran and shorts, because you say the term "feeding stuff" covers both.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Pure bran and shorts
under section 6 will -be sold as bran and shorts; but immediately they are mixed, as I have already pointed out, they are considered to be "commercial feeding stuffs."


Donald Sutherland: The effect of this
clause will be that mill feeds of this kind will be mixed, and you will get but a very small proportion of pure bran and shorts. This clause is a departure from the old

Act, and instead of being an advance along the lines which we desire it is going in the opposite direction. It is making provision for the mixing of all these feeding stuffs and having the mixture disposed of to suit the convenience of the mill feed men.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, there are no restrictions at all on pure bran and shorts, so there is every encouragement for a man to sell them as bran and shorts; but the moment he mixes them with other grains the mixture is classed as a commercial feeding stuff and has to be so described on the label.


Donald Sutherland: I do not notice .any strong desire on the part of the millers or anybody to-day to sell pure bran and shorts; it is absolutely impossible to find them offered for sale. Safeguards to insure their purity should be provided. That is why I take objection to this Bill, in that it does not provide the safeguards which are necessary.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Those who sell bran and shorts nowadays are certainly encouraged to mix other ingredients, because there is no such legislation as this, in force. That is why they mix cheaper feed with bran and shorts. The aim of this Bill is to insure that the farmer shall know what he is buying and shall get what he pays for.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stor-. mont):: In this clause the minister does
not define what is meant by "bran, shorts and middlings." We who are feeding these feeds to our stocks every day have good reason to suspect that what we buy as bran, shorts and middlings are not of th^ quality they used to be. Would it not be possible to define bran, shorts and middlings in such a way as to prohibit the mixing of weed seeds or anything of that kind with them? Perhaps I am reading the Bill wrongly, but I fail to see anything in it that covers this point. I quite understand that immediately weed seeds or similar ingredients are mixed with bran and shorts the mixture becomes a "feeding stuff," and of course comes under the jurisdiction of the inspectors of the department. But even that might not attain the end sought. I think it would be better to prohibit the mixing of anything at all with bran and shorts, because we look upon these articles as being standard and something we can rely on.


James Alexander Robb: I was going to suggest that the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is absolutely right in his view of how the legislation may work out, pro-

viding conditions are continued as they have existed in this country since 1917. If the hon. gentleman will a little later on in the session support the continuation of the Wheat Board, giving it power to fix the price of bran and shorts away down below the market price of the world, he will have the same experience again as he had in the past; there will be a scarcity of bran and shorts. No legislation will make bran and shorts more plentiful in this country; that, is the whole secret-and I am speaking from experience as a man in the milling . business. The only way to get a plentiful supply of pure bran and shorts is to leave the trade to regulate itself and sell these articles at the prevailing market price of the world. Under such conditions we in Canada would not have to pay more than bran and shorts are worth anywhere else. But if we attempt by legislation to fix the price at $10 or $15 a ton below what pure bran and shorts are really worth, and, on the other hand, enable the same board to place a tax of $1.50 to1 $2 a barrel on flour to distribute among the men who have grown the wheat from which that flour was produced, we are going to have in this country a continuation of the same experience that my hon. friend has been complaining of for the last hour and a half-a scarcity of mill feed.


Donald Sutherland: I do not know that the matter referred to by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) has much to do with the subject matter of this clause. As far as I am personally concerned I am not in favour of fixing the prices of anything; I (believe the law of supply and demand should govern, and if mill feeds are worth a certain price, that price should be paid rather than an arbitrary price fixed by the Government. But I want to refer again to the phrase "commercial feeding stuffs" which is defined in this clause. The clause continues;
"'commercial feeding stuffs" does not include bran, shorts or middlings, when unmixed with other materials.
Then subsection 3 says:
"feeding stuff' means any commercial feeding stuff, bran, shorts or middlings and chop feed.
To my mind those two provisions are absolutely contradictory, I fail to understand what object is desired to be attained by these contradictory provisions. I think that the suggestion of the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy) is a very good one, and that we should define what constitutes bran and shorts. We are em-

powering the minister by regulation to do a whole lot of things, and we are somewhat mystified by the definitions contained in this Bill, which, as I have pointed out, are apparently absolutely contradictory.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think the Bill is quite clear, Mr. Chairman. "Feeding stuffs" in the working out of this Bill is a general term applied to all feeding stuffs dealt with herein. In regard to the definition covering bran and shorts, I may say that it will be necessary in the regulations to distinguish several feeds, not only bran and shorts, but also cotton seed cake, oil meal, fish meal, oat hulls, and many of those other ingredients that are used in the manufacture of feeding stuffs It is better to have that matter controlled by regulation, for the reason that from time to time a certain amount of elasticity may be necessary to meet prevailing conditions. For instance, during the war flour extraction from wheat was increased 5 or 6 per cent, and this was done at the expense of bran, so that bran before the war was quite a different article from that which was produced under the new wheat regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-labels on commercial feeding stuffs:
John Wilfred Kennedy: Subsection (2) provides:
In the case of car lots in bulk, the provisions of this section shall be held to be complied with if the statement required by this section is attached to the invoice or bill of lading delivered to the purchaser.
The feeder who goes to buy from the dealer at the car may not have access to that statement, which is in the possession of the dealer. Will the minister insert a provision there to the effect that the state-*ment required by this section must be made available to the purchaser in such a case?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: A dealer who buys such material in bulk and who retails it in sacks must attach to each sack a tag upon which is clearly shown what the contents of the bag are.


John Wilfred Kennedy: When the dealer gets a carload of material in bulk the farmer usually goes to the car with his own sacks, and the material is bagged and sold directly out of the car. I doubt whether the dealer would be willing to attach a tag to every sack put up in that way.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: He violates the provisions of the Act if he does not. If the purchaser
is not certain as to the actual content he may secure a pound of the material and send it to our analyst at Ottawa. A careful analysis of the feed will be made and if it is not in accordance with what it is represented to be, prosecution will follow.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-registration:
James Alexander Robb: Why is not the registration period made to run concurrently with the fiscal year?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It was considered that the arrangement as set forth in the section would be most convenient to the trade.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-use of injurious ingredients prohibited:
Donald Sutherland: In this clause we should be a little more definite; there should be -some statement as to what the regulations are to be. The committee are surely entitled to know what the views of the minister .are in respect to the quantity of weed seeds, damaged grain, and so on, which may be used as a constituent of any feeding stuffs.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In the merchandising of re-cleaned screenings, the standard sample which formed the basis for contract delivery contained less than one per cent by weight of "black seeds" that are capable of passing through a screen with perforations one-fourteenth inch in diameter. These "black seeds" are not all harmful, but contain practically all of the weed seeds
10 p.m. that are injurious to the health of stock. It is better to handle this matter by regulation, owing to the changed conditions which prevail from time to time. In some years more of these screenings are contained in the grain than in others. Certain varieties of seeds are not as large in some dry seasons as they are in ordinary seasons. In the making of these regulations, producers, millers, consumers and experts of the department will be consulted, so that information will be secured from every possible angle. It is not the aim of the department to make regulations that we shall not be able to carry out or which will not be beneficial. By consultation with these different interests it is contemplated that the regulations made will be applicable to the conditions and will render good service.


Donald Sutherland: I appreciate the fact that a sieve with a certain kind of mesh

will take out the most objectionable seeds, but I can hardly appreciate the force of the argument that the variability of the seasons would affect the size of the seeds. I think that the size of the seeds varies very little indeed. I am still of the opinion that we should incorporate in the Bill such provisions as the minister intends to embody in these regulations.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not think that nearly as good service could be rendered in that way. It is better to enable the making of regulations to fit the situation from one year to another.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-to .be free from weed seeds:
Mr. SUTHERLAND; Here again this matter is to be dealt with by regulations that we know nothing about. We must take it for granted that some experts somewhere who know all about this are going to embody in the regulations legislation for the people of Canada. As far as I am concerned, I do not consider that that is why I have been sent here. If there is such wisdom in the minds of these people, I think the minister ought to submit it to the House in concrete form, raither than to ask us to empower him to deal with this matter by regulations that we are not acquainted with to-day. It is proposed to let the clause pass without any explanation. In view of the fact that so many clauses of this Bill empower the minister to deal wih these matters by regulation, in view also of the fact that the minister has entirely ignored the statement I made on the second reading of the Bill, and that he stated that ample provision would be made for safeguarding the purity of these mill feeds and that the Act of last session was still on the statute book, which Act I have shown clearly and conclusively was repealed by the Bill introduced by the Minister of Health, and further, as there is no provision in this Bill to ensure the purity of bran and shorts, I think it would ibe advisable to strike out this clause entirely which permits the minister to deal with the matter by regulation after consulting with very wise people in the East and in the West it may be. In view of these considerations and the fact that no explanation has been made by the minister I beg to move, seconded by the bon. member for Muakoka (Mr. McGibbon:)
That clause 8 as printed in the Bill be struck therefrom and the following- substituted therefor :	[DOT]
"In the case of bran, shorts or middlings, it shall be considered to be adulterated if it con-

tains anything- that is not a product of wheat, or, in the case of corn bran, if it contains anything- that is not a product of maize or Indian corn."
This Bill is far from complete, and we shall be much worse off than at any time in the past if it goes through in its present form. I am therefore moving that the provision passed at the last session be embodied in the Bill, instead of empowering the minister to consult somebody who will by some process of reasoning embody something in the regulations that we do not know anything at all about.
Mr. HENDERS:: I am of the impression that the definition of bran and shorts should come under section 6, where provision is made for dealing with bran and shorts. I do not think the definition should be inserted in section 8.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-certificate of analysis as evidence:
John Wilfred Kennedy: Who pays the cost of analysis of samples?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is free so far as the
working of this Bill is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-analysis, etc., may be published:
Donald Sutherland: What is hoped to
be accomplished by this section, and why is the word "may" used instead of saying that the minister "shall" publish?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It was thought better to leave it to the discretion of the minister whether to publish the results or not. Take the case oif a large dealer who can stand a fine of $200, or $300 or $400 without feeling very much injured. If it is published throughout the country that he is selling feed that has been adulterated, he would suffer to a much greater extent than by the fine. That is why it is .left to the discretion of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-regulations:
Donald Sutherland: We all appreciate
the fact that instead of using the employees now available in the various branches of the Government, the Civil Service is being added to continually. I understand from the remarks the minister made the other night that he does not contemplate appoint-

ing a permanent board, but merely a board with whom he can consult from time to time with reference to this matter. I again wish to repeat that I am disappointed that Parliament is being absolutely ignored in this matter of regulations. The minister asks Parliament to let him consult with and act upon the advice of men whom he says will know much better than the people who will be held responsible for this legislation by the people of this country. As far as I am concerned, I am absolutely opposed to such a procedure. I object to the passing of this section.


Georges Henri Boivin: Carried.


Donald Sutherland: I ask that the yeas and nays be counted.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Tolmie moves that clause 14 stand as part of the Bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Some hon. MEMBERS : Yes.


Donald Sutherland: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: In my opinion the
yeas have it. I declare the section agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17

innocent purchaser protected :
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In regard to the question of costs I think an extraordinary principle is introduced here. This is a criminal offense, and while it is not very serious, nevertheless it must be dealt with as a criminal offense, and the principles of criminal law must be applied. The question in a criminal action is whether a man is guilty or not. If he is guilty he should be punished, and if he is found not guilty, whatever may have happened is by that very fact proved to have been due to no fault of his. He is declared not guilty and is therefore entirely innocent of any offense, and there can be no reason whatever why he should be mulched in costs. The provision of this Bill is a new doctrine to me and, I have no doubt, to every lawyer in the House. If a man is not guilty he should not be subject to any penalty, and the costs in a criminal proceeding are part of the penalty. In this clause you provide that although a man may prove himself absolutely innocent, although he may know that he had no knowledge that there was anything wrong in the transaction, did not know that there was any deleterious substance in the stuff, and considered that everything
was all right, being confident that he was not violating the law; and although the court may have found him not guilty, nevertheless he shall " be liable upon conviction for the costs of the prosecution only." I do not know what advice the minister has received on the point, iflit it seems to me to be a new departure in criminal law procedure.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is not an entirely new ' departure, for it has been a part of the Seed Control Act for the last fifteen years and it has been found to work very smoothly. All that is necessary is to ask the retailer to go before a justice of the peace and make a sworn statement which will cost from fifty cents to a dollar, and this is essential before we can begin prosecution of the manufacturer who sold the goods.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is another peculiar feature about this section. The magistrate can, without a hearing, pronounce judgment upon the information laid before him. Surely that is an extraordinary line of procedure. Before a man can be pronounced innocent or otherwise evidence must be taken and the person who lays the charge must be called upon to substantiate it. But as I understand the situation, some one can go before the magistrate and make an affidavit and without a hearing of the other side, the case is decided. That seems to be another new departure.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have no legal training, and I can only say that this provision has v been working very smoothly for fifteen years in the Seed Control Act, from which it was taken.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Rt. Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 138 to amend the Penitentiary Act was read a second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Minister to have power to make regulations for administration, etc., of penitentiaries:
William Stevens Fielding: Is it proposed that the minister himself shall make these regulations without the assent of Council?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Under the law the administration is, by the clause to which these words are to be added, placed in the hands
34i0


William Stevens Fielding: ^o penalties attached?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No penalties attached.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Was there not a commission appointed to investigate the treatment of the prisoners in the various penitentiaries, and was there not a report made to the minister?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have not had any recent investigation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Rt. Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 137, to amend the Criminal Code was read a second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Definitions of appeal court amended to meet changes in title of courts:
William Stevens Fielding: Did the minister, on the first reading,, explain the general purpose of this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, in so far as there is a general principle, but as there are amendments to different articles of the code it can hardly be said that there is any principle running through the Bill. The first section is for the purpose of making the names of courts conform to the changes which have been made in the names of those courts by provincial legislation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For the purpose of naming the appeal courts?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to the first paragraph, there is no change, and the reason they came to be included was that we desired to include all the provisions about the courts. With reference to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia the Code says that the appeal court shall be the "supreme court en banc." In New Brunswick and in British Columbia the legislatures have altered the constitution of their courts and instead of having one court with an appeal to that court sitting en banc, they have constituted a court of appeal and a court of first instance. In order to have these 
proceedings, which are proceedings intended to go to the court of appeal, go to the court of appeal of the province, we have to make this modification. There is no longer a court that sits en banc to hear appeals. This is simply to meet the change in the constitution of the provincial courts as brought about by provincial legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-permit required for firearms and certain weapons:
William Stevens Fielding: Wherein does this provision differ from the existing law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It differs by extending
the provisions so as to make it cover all classes.


William Stevens Fielding: Additional weapons?


Charles Joseph Doherty: All firearms. Heretofore it was limited to arms that could be concealed upon the person. The Criminal Code was amended last year, and in order to show the precise difference I must refer to the Statutes of 1919.


William Stevens Fielding: Never mind doing that, the general purpose can be stated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the purpose.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A British subject is
only relieved from the necessity of obtaining a license in respect to any shot gun which he owns, but if such a person were to buy a shot gun the license provision applies. If a man now has a shot gun he is all right; but if his neighbour thinks it proper to purchase a shot gun in order to shoot partridge, duck or the like, he must obtain a license. That is making a discrimination of which I do not quite see the force.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I may say it was considered desirable under existing -conditions that we should have a control over the trade in firearms generally. Reports coming from the police, and coming also to some extent from information reaching the military authorities, indicated that in certain localities at different periods there was what looked like an extraordinary movement in the acquisition of firearms. It was thought desirable that we should have a control over them, and therefore we have the system established which existed previously in the case of a certain class of firearms, and which existed previously as regards aliens. Now it is extended so as to cover the acquisition and possession of firearms generally. It did not seem right, however, that a British subject-who under the law as it stood was under no restriction as

regards this class of arms-should be controlled as regards those arms that he had already acquired. This is in order to make the law operative-in so far as it imposes any restriction in regard to shot guns-only with respect to the future. That is the purpose of making the distinction.


Mr. DUFF:: Is it necessary for the owner or captain of a ship to procure a license before he can purchase firearms to take on board his ship? It is sometimes necessary for the captain of a vessel to take firearms on board a ship in case of any trouble. Furthermore, it is customary to have on board a fishing vessel a swivel, or small cannon, to be discharged in a fog in order to let the fishermen when out in their boats, know in which direction to go to reach the vessel. Is it necessary for them to obtain a license in order to place this firearm on board the vessel?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no exception
for that class of persons, and therefore I think they would come under the law. I may point out that no respectable person will have any difficulty whatever in obtaining a permit. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the sections of the existing law which cover the granting of permits, he will find that the officers empowered to grant these permits are so numerous that certainly nobody at any port from which a vessel requiring to carry a firearm would have to leave will have the slightest difficulty in obtaining a permit.


William Stevens Fielding: By whom are the permits issued?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The list of officers
authorized to grant permits is numerous. It includes magistrates, mayors, officers of the Northwest Mounted Police and commissioners of police. The numeration was extended at the time the Act was passed so as to include every officer that within reason could be suggested as a person who might be entrusted with that authority, 'the view being to insure that in practically every part of the country every respectable person would have easy access to the officer authorized to grant the permit.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there any fee to be paid?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


William Duff: Is there a penalty in case of not obtaining a license?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, there is a penalty for a person having the arm without a permit, and there is a penalty for the man
who sells the arm if he does not satisfy himself that the party purchasing has a permit.


William Duff: There must be a permit for every individual purchase?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


William Duff: What about the question of jurisdiction on the high seas outside the three-mile limit?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As to jurisdiction we
are not purporting to legislate in this Act to make it an offence to carry a firearm on the high seas outside the three-mile limit. What our power is in that regard would perhaps be a question connected with one of the resolutions on the Order Paper. At all events, power or no power, we are not pretending to exercise any such right by this legislation.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Do I understand that a
British subject [DOT]who is now the possessor of a shot gun may still keep it without obtaining a license?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What about the child who owns an air rifle at the present moment, what becomes of him?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know whether you could describe-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are you afraid of his
Bolshevist activities?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would assume that
this law, like all other laws, would be applied with some degree of intelligence. I fancy that a child who might own an air gun would not be in very serious jeopardy if he did not obtain a permit. I want to be perfectly frank. The purpose is as I have explained, and we do not think it is imposing any hardship upon anybody, when we make it possible for any respectable person to .obtain a permit without any difficulty. The purpose is to enable us to obtain knowledge of the trafficking in dangerous firearms, and keep control over persons who have them in their possession. Police reports at different times have urged the great importance of this knowledge and control. In connection with applications for clemency it is astonishing how much crime is attributable to the ease with which people obtain firearms and the indiscriminate way they use them. We do think that the very slight inconvenience imposed upon respectable citizens is more than justified by the importance o,f our being able to control the possession of these dangerous weapons.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not see the logic in refusing a permit to the owner of a rifle and granting it to the owner of a shot gun. It seems 'to me that a shot gun at short range would do just as much damage as a rifle, probably more.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was pointed out that there is a much wider field of use for the shot gun for purposes entirely disconnected . with violence. If we are a trifle too severe on the man who owns a rifle-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But how many respectable citizens who go hunting every autumn have rifles at home? They will never think of applying for a permit, and they will be liable to great annoyance by some officious magistrate,-and his type is frequently met with in the country.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This law, like every other law, will become known, and I do not think any respectable citizen will resent being called upon to take out a permit. On the contrary, I think all respectable citizens twill realize the importance of control in this matter, and will be glad to contribute to that control at the slight inconvenience Of applying for a permit. Of course, it is a most unfortunate thing, but law cannot be administered except upon the assumption-a very violent assumption I know-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That a man thinks.
Mr. DOHERTY -that men know and think.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Provided the law be reasonable; but this law does not seem to be reasonable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have stated what seems to me to be reasonable.	^


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But the men I have in mind have used rifles all their lives perhaps, and because the hon. minister and the Government for some reason or other have got it into their heads that Bolshevism or some other "ism" is rampant in the country they are going to force such men to run round for a permit. The most reasonable and law abiding citizens will not think of such a thing.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have a larger faith in the capacity for thought of the reasonable law-abiding citizens of this country.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But this is not a reasonable law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as I am capable of judging of what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, I think this is a reason-

able provision. Reasonable citizens who drive in automobiles-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The automobile is more dangerous than the rifle.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps it is. But automobile owners .are required to obtain licenses; and I might instance numerous other cases in which licenses are required. I think the hon. gentleman will find 'that his apprehensions will not be justified in the practical working out of this legislation. It cannot be reasonably suggested that because we have a law against the carrying of concealed weapons we are all liable at any moment to be stopped by a constable on the street and searched. How often does that happen to respectable citizens? On the other hand, this is a most invaluable safeguard in respect to citizens who do not happen to he reasonable or worthy to have in their possession arms of this kind.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My principal objection is that by this law a shot gun is excepted and a rifle is not. What distinction can be drawn between a shot gun and a rifle I do not know. Supposing I have a rifle in my possession at home, and before going away shooting I apply to some magistrate in the country for a permit; for some reason or other he refuses to issue me one; what becomes of my rifle? Do I give it to the magistrate? Do I throw it away? Or is any provision made for compensation for the confiscation of my property?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can only suggest that in that case the hon. gentleman should take the trouble of finding a reasonable magistrate,-and there are lots of them.


William Stevens Fielding: What meaning would the minis'ter attach to the word "shot gun" in the tenth line? A British subject is not required to obtain a permit to own a shot gun which he already posseesses. But in the list of things banned shot guns are not mentioned. I would think that "shot gun" was intended to cover all forms of guns and rifles.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The preceding Word
covers every kind of machine gun, rifle, gun, revolver, etc.


William Stevens Fielding: But not the shot gun?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It does not say "shot gun," but it covers every gun, and we make an exception for the shot gun already owned. "Shot gun" is already included among the weapons mentioned, and moreover would be included among "firearms,"

for it is a firearm. What was urged upon us as a reason for making this exception was* the very widespread extent to which farmers in this country, and particularly in certain sections, own shot guns and consider them as practically part of their equipment. It was thought that we should not make this law operative in respect to weapons of that kind already owned by them. The difference between the two situations is that in regard to* that particular kind of weapon the law is to apply only to those firearms which are hereafter acquired.


William Stevens Fielding: Why should this provision not read?- .
Provided that no British subject shall be required to obtain a permit with respect to any gun now owned by him.
What is the object of using the word "shot gun?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was thought that that expression would best cover the case of those persons who are already in possession of a weapon of this kind the principal purpose of which is for use in hunting. I do not say that the rifle is never used for hunting, but that is not its primary or principal purpose, as I understand it. On the other hand, it was reported to us that the shot gun is the weapon which the farmer keeps in his house and uses, more particularly in the western part of the country. The idea was to avoid withdrawing from a large class of the people a privilege which they had hitherto enjoyed. I can offer no fruther reason for the distinction. Perhaps it is not absolutely well founded, but there seemed to be good reason for making it. If experience should show that it is desirable to extend these requirements to other weapons, we shall be able subsequently to amend the law in that regard. In the meantime we have the general provision on the subject.


Mr. DECHENE:: Will the permit be good all over Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no restriction upon the place where a permit issued by a competent officer may be used.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Does this clause apply to obsolete arms or arms that are used for purely decorative purposes? I know of several public places and dwellings where article*s enumerated here are used for decorative purposes only.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Panoplies.


William Foster Cockshutt: Some of these
weapons are hundreds of years old; they
are collected by people who make a kind of hobby of that sort of thing. To require a permit for each arm of that kind would work considerable hardship. I do not know w'hat the permit costs; it may be free. But some of these articles might be difficult to name. We do not want to do injustice to a very large number of our citizens who are already in possession of many of these articles.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have to confess that I had not considered that possible event. I think it would be an extreme interpretation to say that a man* who had a gun such as is used for decorative purposes would be in possession of a firearm in the sense of this statute. If the hon. member thinks that the cases are so numerous and the probability of the law being interpreted to cover such cases so great as to necessitate an exception, I have no objection to making an exception to meet the case. I think, however, that we may safely count upon the word "firearm" being interpreted as being an arm susceptible of being used today as a firearm. We have had this sort of legislation for years, and I do not know that people who preserve, say daggers, as curios or mementos or objects of historical interest have ever been troubled under it. I think we may safely let the law stand in its present form, and if it gives rise to any cases of that kind we may take care of them. It is difficult to anticipate all the cases that might be conjured up as coming within the section,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the word "person" in this section include a corporation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The general Interpretation Act, and, I think, the interpretation clauses of the Criminal Code, make the word "person" include a corporation. I see no reason why a corporation should be entitled to have weapons of this sort with out permit any more than an individual person. Of course, possession on the part of a corporation must be possession on the part of some individual person; a corporation cannot act except through persons.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the minister is right in saying that the word "person" includes a corporation. I note that cannons are being distributed all around the country to corporations, who are accepting them as gifts from the Government. Will these corporations be obliged to go to a magistrate and get a license to hold those guns?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think they will; I do not see why they should not. I do not see why a corporation or a person should not

ibe required to get a permit to possess a cannon when we provide ample facility for the obtaining of a permit. Corporations as well as individual persons could help us out in that regard.


John Flaws Reid: I would inform the minister that out West the rifle is just as common as the shot gun in the farmer's home. I look upon the shot gun as a more dangerous weapon than the rifle. I think both the rifle and the shot gun should,be allowed, as a concession to the farmers,
|Mir. DOHERTY: Of course, the hon. gentleman has a more intimate knowledge of western conditions than I have, but I tray say that from inquiry I made on the subject the impression that remained with me and with my colleagues-because we made inquiry on the subject that we thought was sufficient-was that the shot gun was the more usual and the more necessary weapon. It Is difficult for us, in passing a law of this kind, to begin differentiating between different classes of people. In the circumstances in which weapons of this sort are sources of danger, we do find that the rifle figures more frequently than the shot gun and that therefore there is a greater need for control of the possession of the rifle than there is for control of the possession of the shot gun. That is the result of our inquiry. The argument may get this far; that because we do feel that we ought to control the possession of the rifle, if hon. gentlemen persuade us that there is no distinction to be made between the rifle and the shot gun, we shall have to consider whether we ought not to withdraw the exception made in favour of the shot gun. I think that outside of weapons that can be concealed the rifle is perhaps the most important weapon for us to see, as far as we may, that it is only in the hands of proper people. I would sympathize with my hon. friend's objection if there was any real difficulty for any respectable man to get a permit, but, as I have said, we have provided to make it the easiest thing in the world for a respectable man to get a permit. At the time the statute went through the House, I accepted suggestions from everybody who could suggest to me an officer that might be authorized to give this permit, because I recognized, and I recognize still, that we ought not to make this a burdensome thing, and it is not a burdensome thing.
On section 3-signing pretended affidavit or declaration:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Wa.s it not the intention to limit this to improper use of an affidavit in the case only of judicial proceedings? There might be some tomfoolery about something that looked like a declaration that was not in a judicial proceeding at all. I would think that the intention of the Act was that if a person uses such a declaration or affidavit in any judicial proceedings he shall be subject to a penalty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention was to
make it an offence for any person to send a man out in possession of something that on its face is an affidavit sworn to before a proper officer, when it never was so sworn. There have been brought to my attention quite a number of instances where this has been done, and where, outside of actual judicial proceedings,, it has been used to perpetrate a fraud. For instance, it has been brought to my attention that in certain parts of the country there is a widespread practice among certain gentlemen authorized to issue marriage licenses, and who in the issue of the licenses, have to take affidavits from the person applying for the license, to leave with their clerk or lady stenographer the necessary form, and when any man came along and wanted a marriage license the lady would fill in the form with his name and so forth, and when our issuer of marriage licenses got back, without ever having seen the man, he certified at the bottom that that man had sworn to it. Now that is a serious offence. Any man who is authorized to administer oaths should certainly realize that he is not entitled to certify that a man swore to a certain thing when he did not swear to it.
The second paragraph deals with the offence of the man who puts the affidavit forward as being a proper affidavit. Many and many a transaction has been put through, quite outside the courts, upon the faith of an affidavit. It seems to me that the practice of going out and palming off these documents as affidavits which are really not affidavits calls for repression, and if we limit it exclusively to judicial proceedings we shall fail to reach a large number of oases that ought to be reached. I do not know why it should have happened, but there seems to have been a sort of outbreak of this thing. I have had communications from different sources calling my attention to the abuse made of these pretended affidavits, and as it happens these cases were not in judicial proceedings. In a judicial proceeding you have a judge and some authority to take pains to verify the affidavits.

But take the case with regard to marriage licenses. Certainly that is a very great abuse, if it prevails to any widespread extent, and in the particular cases which came to my knowledge, the gentleman who issued these licenses was surprised at the suggestion that he did wrong, and the young lady who had been employed in that particular instance was surprised to learn that she was doing anything wrong. She says " Why, for years I was in the employ of Mr. So-andsSo, and Mr. So-and-So, and Mr. So-and^So, all of whom were authorized to issue marriage licenses-"


William Stevens Fielding: Does the false affidavit affect the validity of the marriage?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, but the requiring of the affidavit is for the protection of the other consort, or any other people who may be interested. It certainly is a very grave evil, even if it should not go so far as to affect the validity of the marriage, that people should be enabled to avoid the consequences of perjury,-for if they did not swear to anything they cannot be convicted of perjury,- by making use of what purports to be an affidavit but which they know is not an affidavit. The purpose was not to confine the offence to judicial proceedings. If anybody gets into trouble, because he wants to get into trouble by sending out sham affidavits I do not think he is entitled to a great deal of sympathy, and if it be simply a joke, I have no doubt the magistrate will mete out the proper punishment. But it is a serious thing, and people ought to have it impressed on them that the oath is^ not a thing to be fooled with in reality or in appearance.


John Flaws Reid: Referring for a moment to the section we have just passed, where there are several sons in a farmer's home will each member of the family who wishes to use the rifle have to have a separate permit?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Oh, no. The rifle is,
properly speaking, in the possession, I would take it, of the home. If the individual wants to take that rifle away in his own personal possession and use it, I think he would be required to have a permit, and that is for the purpose of keeping a check upon the people who use -these weapons. Any -one who wants to carry a firearm of that kind must ge-t a permit.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-seduction of girls between 16 and 18 instead of 14 and 16.
Mr. PROULX:: Is this the same clause
as that passed last year and the year before?	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. This and several of the following clauses were passed last year. In fact, this one was passed in 1918 and 1919, but the Senate did not look with favour on it. We propose to send these clauses back.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-betting, pool-selling and bookmiaking.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister become sponsor for this remarkable section? I do not profess to understand it myself but I take it that the minister knows all about it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The section reproduces
the law as it stands, with all the existing restrictions upon the permissibility of organized betting. The reason it is so long and complicated is the fact that it repeats all the restrictions that already exist, and it adds certain further restrictions. In the first place, the organized betting is to be exclusively by the operation of the parimutuel machine; the bookmaker is gone. In the second place, the profit to be taken by the association or person conducting a race meeting is limited to the percentages mentioned in the section as follows:
Where the total amount staked or deposited on each race is under $20,000 . .	1%
$20,'00'0 but not exceeding $30,000..	..	6%
Over $30,0'00, but not exceeding $40,000.	5%
Over $40,000 but not exceeding $50,000..	4%
Over $-50,000	 3%
In addition the machines are to be subject to the approval of the officer of the Minister of Agriculture; the operation is to be carried on under his supervision. The machines are to be locked before the horses can be started, and if the proprietors of the race track do not devote what in the judgment of the Minister of Agriculture is a proper proportion of the moneys so derived from these percentages to giving prizes for the encouragement of horse breeding, the minister is empowered to require them to discontinue the use of the machine or in other words to prevent any organized betting on the race track. The purpose is to create a situation where no association will have the privilege of organized betting on its race track if the association is one that is in the business for what it can make out of it. It will prevent there being any big haul for the gentlemen who want to engage in this organized betting as a business,



and we expect that it will reduce the race tracks to those which are controlled by people who bona fide, carry on their racing for the sake of the sport and to whom the betting feature is purely incidental, something, which, according to the testimony laid before Mr. Rutherford the Commissioner, is, by a large number of people at all events, believed to be essential to keeping up a state of interest in the meetings and inducing people to support them. We think that the clause surrounds the privilege with every restriction with which it Can be surrounded if it is to be allowed to exist at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this machine that
the minister has spoken of capable of fraudulent manipulation? I do not know very much about these things but I have heard it said that some of the machines that are used, slot machines and that sort of instrument, can be so adjusted as to be made unfair to the man who is betting. I suppose the minister is satisfied that there is no such device in connection with the machine that is used on the race track?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have provided as
an additional precaution* that the machines used have to pass the inspection of an officer appointed by the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of seeing that there is no trick about them.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the object of making a distinction between trotting races and others?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The distinction is not
new; it exists in the present law and has existed in the past. Our information is that the great evils that are claimed to have resulted-and I think it cannot be questioned have resulted-from the abuse of the betting privilege have, whatever may be the occult reason, been more in connection with running races than wdth trotting races. I understand furthermore that trotting races very largely take place in connection with fairs, agricultural exhibitions and gatherings of that kind, and I am informed that the experience is that they do not generate the grave evils that have unfortunately surrounded the running race tracks. In regard to trotting races we are making no change in the law. Additional restrictions are being put on running races and I may say that a large number of restrictions had already been put on the running races which are not made applicable to trotting races.


Mr. PROTTLX:: How many race tracks are there in operation?
fMr. Doherty.]


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not that information before me now, but they have grown considerably and that is one of the things that we hope this law will kill. We have reason to believe that quite a number of race tracks have sprung up as'money making things pure and simple, and it is in connection with these race tracks and moneymaking by persons running race tracks that we expect that the effect of this law will be to disinterest this class of people in racing associations, and that in the future we may hope to have racing controlled by people who are interested only for the sport and for the encouragement of the breeding of good horses and to whom the betting is a mere incident as the profit which they may get out of it is a mere incident.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-carnally knowing girl between 14 and 16:
Edmond Proulx: What is the maximum punishment now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is to create a speci-fiv offence in regard to a girl between 14 and 16. As the law is at present it is an offence to have carnal knowledge of a girl under 14. There is no protection to a girl of 16. We are raising the age to 16 and making the punishment in the case of a girl between 14 and 16 not as severe as it is in the case of a girl under 14.


Edmond Proulx: Consent is not material now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Consent under 14 is entirely immaterial. Consent under 16 will be immaterial in the future, but the punishment of a person committing an offence with a girl between 14 and 16 is not made as heavy as it is with regard to a girl under 14. In the case of a girl under 14 a man is liable to imprisonment for life and to be whipped. While we have extended the period of protection it has not seemed to Parliament in both instances in which it has dealt with it that the punishment should be as great in the case of this new offence as it was in the case of the old one.


Edmond Proulx: What is the maximum punishment under the Code in the case of a girl between 14 and 16?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The present section, 301, reads as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and to be whipped, who carnally knows any girl under the age of fourteen years, not being his wife,

whether he believes her to be of or above that age or not.
So that if the girl is under the age of fourteen the man is liable to imprisonment for life. Where the girl is between fourteen and sixteen the man is liable to imprisonment for five years. There is a substantial difference between the penalties.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Unlawfully wearing decorations or uniform, or unlawfully possessing certificate of discharge, or unlawfully making alterations in such certificates.
Mr. PECK:: I entirely sympathize with
this section, but I would like to ask for an explanation from the minister in regard to subsection 2 dealing with the onus of proof. It is the easiest thing in the world for a man to lose his discharge papers, and unless he were given ample time to prove his identity he might suffer hardship.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course it would be
the duty of the court, to give him every possible opportunity to present proof. The only purpose of the section is to relieve the prosecution of proving the negative, that, is proving that he had no right to wear the uniform. I think in the great bulk of cases a man who is lawfully wearing a uniform, or the decorations referred to in file subsection, will have no serious difficulty in proving his right; the mere loss of his discharge papers would not make it impossible for him to prove it.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: He could prove his identity and get a duplicate?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no doubt the
court would give him every reasonable opportunity of bringing that proof.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section H-Process not to issue for the arrest or summoning of a person outside a province without approval of Attorney General or a judge.
Edmond Proulx: Will that not cause delay in having the process served. In Ontario the judges of the Supreme Court of the province all reside in the city of Toronto.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It may cause delay, but it is to be borne in mind that this i3 a clause applicable in the somewhat exceptional case where a warrant issued in one province is to be executed in another province. and the accused brought out of his 217J
province for trial. Now it has been urged that it is a very great hardship that it should be in the power of any irresponsible individual who goes and swears out a warrant to bring a man from Gaspe in the province of Quebec to, if you like, Vancouver, there to find that there is an unfounded charge against him. He will be put to very heavy expense in returning, and so forth. It has seemed under those circumstances that, if the party complaining is not willing to go to where the accused is and have him arrested and tried there, it is not imposing an unfair requirement to demand that some responsible party should justify that man being brought out of his own province. I may say that our attention was specially called to this in connection with prohibition legislation. The hardship of subjecting a man to be taken out of one province to be tried in another was very strongly urged, and this very objection made-that a man is liable to be brought out of his own province and nobody is responsible. This safeguard was adopted in that particular legislation, and it has been urged upon us that it would be desirable to make it of general application.
'Mr. PROULX:	In a province where
there are county court judges those judges could be added.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think there would be no objection to adding the words "or a county court judge."


William Stevens Fielding: It would be better to add the words, "or a county court."


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then the section would read: "or a judge of the superior court or of a county court." I move that the section be so amended.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How will the section read as amended?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will read as follows:
No warrant or -other process shall be issued in any province for the arrest or summoning of any person residing in another province without the approval of the Attorney General or a Judge of the Superior Court or of a County Court of the province where it is sought to issue the process.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is quite possible that in criminal proceedings a man might be wanted merely as a witness. In the provinces of Nova -Scotia and New Brunswick we have two towns very close together, Amherst and Sackville, and if you want a Sack-ville man over at Amherst you have to go

to the county court judge at Pictou or to the Attorney General at Halifax before you can issue a subpoena.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I take it that the provision would not apply to the subpoenaing of a witness. The words are:
No warrant or other 'process shall be issued in any province for the arrest or summoning of any person residing in another province

The hon. gentleman of course knows that on a charge or complaint being laid against a man there issues a warrant for his arrest or a summons for him to appear, and I take it that the process in question is the process for the arrest of any person accused of an offence. I do not think the words cover the subpoening of a witness.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the section was
amended to read, "no person shall be summoned or arrested upon a criminal charge," I think that would meet the objection I am taking. The Minister of Justice is aware that if I go before a magistrate and make an affidavit that I have reason to believe that a witness will not attend on an ordinary subpoena, I can get a warrant for his arrest. In a case of that kind a man would be arrested when merely wanted as a witness.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is nothing like making things clear, and I will be quite happy to accept the suggestion. I beg to move that section 11 be amended by inserting after the word "summoning" in the nineteenth line the words "upon a criminal charge." The section will then read:
No warrant or other process shall be issued in any province for the arrest or summoning upon a criminal charge of any person residing in another province-


Edmond Proulx: But there are certain laws which are considered to be penal and not criminal, such as the Ontario Temperance Act. Would that cover it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have nothing to
do with those laws; this is the Criminal Code.


Edmond Proulx: That is right. In the
western provinces I believe they call their courts "district courts" instead of county courts; and in Ontario there are certain district courts.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that section 11
be further amended by inserting after the word "Court" in the twenty-first line the

words "or of a County Court or of a District Court."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-appeals in summary convictions in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Charles Joseph Doherty: (I move to amend this clause by inserting after the words "District Court" in line twenty-seven the words, "of the district in which the cause of the information or complaint arose." I may say that this amendment is being made at the request of the Attorneys General of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in order to remove a doubt which existed under the present legislation as to what court an appeal should be taken to from a magistrate's decision. Under the present wording it has been argued that a convicted party was entitled to take his appeal to the nearest- district court, when that wasi the district court sitting at the place nearest to where he was convicted, without regard to whether it was within or without the judicial district. Both these law officers concur in the view that, it being desirable to avoid confusion, it should be made clear that the appeal must be to the district court in which the cause of action arose. As the present printed wording might still leave some doubt, I move that amendment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Sometimes we have
confusion in our county of Cape Breton because we have two places at which the County Court sits, and it is rather doubtful which of those the appeal should be taken to. In civil and quasi-criminal matters the provincial law is that the appeal shall be to the court sitting at the nearest place to where the trial magistrate sat; but I do not think there is anything like that in the Criminal Code. There I think the rule is that the appeal shall be heard at the next sitting of the County Court, and that may not be nearest to the place where the magistrate tried the case. It seems to me it would be well to have it stated that the appeal be to the court sitting nearest to the place of the first trial. * Witnesses should not be taken away from home further than is necessary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision now
seems to be for the province of New Brunswick precisely what we are trying to make it for the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The provinces of Nova Beotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba are dealt with in subsection (c) of this section 749, and the provision is that the appeal shall be to the

County Court of the district or county where the cause of the information or complaint arose.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What I have in view
is this:	When the county court sits in
more than one place in the same district, under that law you have to go to the first sitting of the court whether it is the nearest court or not. Under our provincial law there is a provision that you may go to the court sitting at the place nearest to where the magistrate tried the case. In our county the court sits at Sydney, but it also sits twice a year, for the hearing of appeals and other matters, at North Sydney, on the other side of the water. If a case is tried at Sydney Mines or North Sydney the appeal must be heard, under the present law, at the first sitting of the court at Sydney, although that is not the nearest place.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This particular provision does not impose any obligation with regard to the place at which the appeal shall be heard when the court sits at more than one place in the same district. Does this provision oblige the person appealing to go at the very next sitting? I ask that question for this reason:	In these matters
of procedure we have made it ,a practice not to modify provisions of that kind without consultation with the law officers of the province affected. Unless the hon. gentleman is absolutely clear that there is a substantial necessity for- modifying this provision I would rather not do so without consulting the law officers of the province.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not asking the
minister to do it on the spur of the moment. But there is a provision in the Criminal Code which says that if the magistrate's trial takes place more than fourteen days before the sitting of the higher court, then the person appealing must go to the first sitting of that court, regardless of whether or not it is the nearest or more remote from the place where the magistrate's trial was held. We find it inconvenient in our county because one court sits very much farther away from Sydney Mines than the one which sits at North Sydney. We are always careful that we do not give the notice of appeal to the wrong court. However, I do not ask the minister to change the provision now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall take it up with
the Attorney General of the province with a view to further action.
On section 15-provision that no prisoner may re-elect later than 30 days before jury trials commence not to apply to county of York, Ont.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What special provision is this?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The proviso referred to, embodied in the statutes of 1919, was for the purpose of preventing an abuse that had grown up in different parts of the country with regard to cases where the accused had an option whether he should be tried by jury or take his trial before the magistrate or the judge of Sessions in different parts of the country. The abuse had grown up on the part of the accused, especially in Montreal and the province of Quebec, of making options for trial by jury upon being arraigned, and then, when the grand jury found, if it did find, a true bill against him, of withdrawing the option and declaring for trial before the Court of Sessions. The result was a very long delay between the arraignment of the accused and his trial, giving rise to many inconveniences,-the detaining of witnesses, and so on. Last year the law was amended doing away with the privilege, once the option had been made, of withdrawing that option and choosing to be tried before the magistrate or the judge of Sessions. It has been represented, however, that in the county of York the operation of that law has been such as unduly to encumber the Courts of Sessions and to cause other material difficulty in the administration of justice. It was thought proper to meet the request of the law officers of the province and except that particular county from the operation of this section.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand it, the law previously provided that the accused could elect to be tried by a jury instead of by a judge and that he could later reverse that decision any say that he would prefer to be tried by the judge without a jury. The minister tells us that under the amendment of last year the prisoner could only elect once for all. Are we now going back to the old law so far as the county of York is concerned?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will withdraw the county of York from the effect of the provision of last year's Act. Here is the proviso. It did not go as far as I suggested, but it limited the time within which a man might make his option. The proviso reads:
It an indictment has been preferred against a prisoner the consent of the prosecuting officer

shall be necessary to a re-election, and in such case the sheriff shall take no action on being informed of the prisoner's desire to re-elect unless such consent is given in writing.
This, I think, is the particular proviso:
And provided also that no prisoner shall have a right to re-elect later than thirty days before the day fixed for the next sittings of the court at which trials by jury can be had, unless the prisoner was committed for trial within forty days before the said date, in which event he must re-elect not later than ten days before the day fixed for the next sitting of the court at which trials by jury can be had.
The purpose was to prevent a man waiting until he gets to his court where he wa6 indicted, and finding out whether any true bill -would be found, and if there was a true bill found against him, withdrawing his option and re-electing. It is only the last proviso that is being made inapplicable. That is the one that was added last year. So the proviso that prevents a man within thirty days of the sitting of the court where he might be tried by jury altering his election will not in future apply to the county of York, and he will be entitled to alter his election up to the holding of the court. The proviso was made to facilitate the administration of justice, but it appears that in one particular district it did not operate to produce t-hat result. As I have said, in deference to this authoritative expression of opinion and the desire of the Attorney General and the law officers of the province, it did not seem to us there could be any objection to meeting their request.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no particular objection to limiting one's power to go before, a county court judge, because we are not by so doing depriving any one of his right 'to trial by jury, but I would hesitate to throw any obstacles in the way of a man's electing to be tried by jury at any stage.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This imposes no obstacles to his having trial by jury. What we are doing now is giving the prisoner greater liberty, because we are withdrawing the restriction which prevented his reelecting within thirty days of the coining on of the court. The prisoner in York has really a wider liberty than prisoners elsewhere.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Attorney General of Quebec given power to apply for change of venue as well as accused when no criminal terms in district where accused is.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know whether there are any Quebec lawyers here to-night, but in the province from which I come we are very strongly opposed to a change of venue in a criminal court case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might explain ithe situation, which is perhaps a special one. I might say that this is being done at the request of the Attorney General of the province of Quebec. There provision is made for the holding of the term of the Court of King's Bench, criminal assizes, in each of the rural districts of the province, and it happens in numerous instances, because we are a very virtuous province, that when the time comes around in a district to hold a criminal term there is perhaps only one criminal, and that may be the case in three or four districts. Under the law as it stands, the Attorney General has no option hut to involve himself in all the expense of summoning juries, and all that goes with it, to hold a criminal term at the chief town of that district to try that one man. The same thing might happen in two or three other districts, where, if there was only one prisoner, each man would have a court unto himself. The Attorney General has represented, and I think the good sense of it must appeal to everybody, that under those circumstances he should have power to transfer these cases to some one district where the trial would he held, so that one court might dispose of a reasonable number of cases. It would relieve the province of very heavy expense to no purpose, and it would also relieve the prisoner from being exposed to being kept in gaol for a long time, waiting for his term in his own particular district, because naturally under these conditions terms are not held very frequently in such districts. On the one hand, it reduces the expense to the province, and on the other, it affords more speedy opportunity for trial of the accused, which to a man being held in gaol is a very important thing.


Mr. STBIN:: Does not the minister think it would be an economy to do away with jury trial in petty cases of theft for a few dollars? I understand that the accused often chooses trial by jury in order to gain time, and with a chance perhaps of seeing witnesses disappear or die and the evidence vanish, and then when the time comes to undergo trial before jury he chooses a trial before a magistrate. I think to do away with trial by jury in petty cases of this kind would save a great deal of money to the province and even to the Dominion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: One would want to go
slowly in the face of such a proposal as to deprive a British subject of his right to trial by jury. I think, however, my hon. friend is mistaken in saying that people are entitled to trial by jury for thefts of very trifling sums. I do not know just what the amount is-


Edmond Proulx: Ten dollars.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. As to the abuse which the hon. member complains of, of a prisoner making option for a trial by jury to gain delay, and then withdrawing that option, by the provision of last year which I have just read, and which has been withdrawn from operation in the county of York-it remains in operation in the province of Quebec-the privilege of re-electing must be exercised at least forty days before the jury trials commence. So the prisoner is confined to a very short period within which he can exercise the privilege of re-election. If he has elected for trial by jury, he must in a limited time alter his choice, or adhere to his choice of trial by jury. I should be glad to consider, when we have lots of time to give to it, whether there ought to be further restrictions on trial by jury, but I should not like to decide hastily this evening to cut off a man's recourse to trial by jury.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am glad to hear from the minister that the great province from which he comes is so free from crime of any kind, but I am shocked to recall the fact that yesterday-I think it was yesterday-he was very severely brought to task for arresting twro persons who were trying to escape a sentence of twenyt-five years for some extraordinary crime. I am rather disposed to think now that the men should have been left at large. It was a mistake.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are among the
exceptions that prove the rule in our province.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is another thing. Trivial criminal offences are always bailable, and the argument which the minister puts forward that offenders might be awaiting trial for a long time is of course answered by the fact that they can always get bail and be at large until a convenient time comes for trial. There is a provision in the code that if it is represented to a judge or the Attorney General that a man cannot obtain a fair trial in the county in which he has been arrested and is awaiting trial, if it is shown that there is danger
that either the Crown or the prisoner will not have a fair show, there can be a change of venue to be named by the judge with the advice of the Attorney General. The code also provides that the judge who changes the venue must provide for taking the witnesses of the defence to the more remote place, if it is far from the place in which he is arrested and it is more expensive to the prisoner to take his witnesses there. There must be provision for his expenses in getting his witnesses to that place. I do not notice anything in the law which the minister is putting into effect to-night to provide for a case of that kind. If a man is taken from the place where he should be tried to some other place he may not be able to pay for his witnesses, if he is a poor man; and if he is to be switched around, there must be provision for his witnesses' fees.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend will observe that the sections empowers the court to order a change of venue " in the manner hereinbefore provided," and the manner "hereinbefore provided" for changing the venue is that the order shall be made upon such conditions as to the payment of any additional expenses as the court or judge thinks proper to prescribe. So that in this case where it is decided "by competent authority " that a change is desirable, the accused will have the same protection which he has in, the case where the change of venue results from apprehension that there will not be a fair trail in -the district in which the accused is arrested,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: of the acquaintances which he may have formed during his lifetime and the good effect he may have created in the community in which he has lived. For that- reason, I have always been strongly in favour of the principle of a man being tried in the place in which he has lived, where he is known, and where he is able to obtain the benefit of his reputation, whatever it may be. On the other hand, of course, he may have been a bad man and his reputation in the community might be against him. If. that is the case, it is only proper that he should be tried by men who are acquainted with his general reputation. I do not want to press the point further, but I cannot allow this Bill to pass without putting on record my view; I am dead against a change of venue in criminal cases unless it is absolutely necessary for two reasons, first, that the Crown cannot obtain a fair show, and second, that there is such a prejudice against the accused that justice will not likely be done to him.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-appeal to Supreme Court of Canada where judgment conflicts with the judgment of any other Court of Appeal :
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does that mean?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has happened that
the courts of Appeal of two provinces have pronounced, in each case unanimously, upon the same question arising under the criminal code, in absolutely diametrically contrary senses, and inasmuch as there is no appeal in criminal cases where the judgment of the Court of Appeal is unanimous -there is no appeal to the Supreme Court -there is no method of getting that jurisprudence settled. Now, the purpose of this section is to make it possible to get the jurisprudence settled, and I think the hon. member will realize that it is a highly undesirable condition, if we cannot find a remedy for it, where jurisprudence in courts applying one and the same law of Dominion-wide application, shall be left to differ in different provinces. I may say we have had representations from the judges of the different courts in the different provinces pointing out this anomalous condition of affairs. The remedy that is given provides that in such case hereafter the right of appeal is to the Supreme Court either on the part of the Attorney General or the accused, the purpose being to secure a determination which will settle the jurisprudence in the same sense for the whole of Canada in cases

where it happens that courts of final jurisdiction, as the law now stands come to different conclusions upon the same question and under the same law.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the clause refer to t'he Attorney General of the Dominion or of the province?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Attorney General of the province where the question arises.


William Stevens Fielding: There is nothing to indicate that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let me point it out.


William Stevens Fielding: Do not point it out; it is all right; let it go.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would point it out.


William Stevens Fielding: I am quite content if the hon. gentleman is satisfied.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will only take a few moments. The parties to the suit are the Attorney General of the province on the one side and the accused on the other. I have no objection to adding a few words to make it clear, but I would understand it to be the Attorney General of the province because it is the Attorney General who is a party to the prosecution.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not ask that it be changed. I will be content with calling my hon. friend's attention to it.


Edmond Proulx: Leave must be asked for in every case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, because the
Supreme 'Court must be satisfied that it is a case where there is a conflict.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think that my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has raised a reasonable point. It means the Attorney General of the province but it should be made clear because we have nine provinces.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have a saying in our province that "Many things go without saying, but they none the less go better when siaid." I beg to move that section 19 be amended by inserting after the words "Attorney General," in the 32nd line, the words "of the province."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: Would the minister say "of any other court of appeal." He means the court of appeal in any other province?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes,


William Stevens Fielding: That is not stated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As it happens, there is only one Court of Appeal in each province, and it is known as the Court of Appeal. I think the wording Should -stay as "it is. It does not necessarily mean that the court must be in another province, because if it happened that there were two Courts of Appeal in one province the appeal provided for in this clause could be taken.


William Stevens Fielding: Are there such?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know of any.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Unless they exist in
Quebec there are no provinces with two Courts of Appeal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then "any other Court of Appeal" must necessarily mean a Court of Appeal in some other province. It seems to me that it is better as it is.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it is better as
it is.
Bill reported and amendments concurred in.


Georges Henri Boivin: When shall
the said Bill be read a third time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Now.


Georges Parent: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the
House give its unanimous consent that the Bill be now read a third time?


Georges Parent: If it must have the consent of the House, I would say, no.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I offer my sincere and warm congratulations to the hon. gentleman upon the exercise of his great power.


Georges Henri Boivin: Next sitting
of the House.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned' at 12.35 a.m., Friday.
Friday, June 11, 1920.